Full text of "Corruption in professional boxing : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session"

See other formats

S. Hrg. 103-184

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING— Part II

M.G 74/9: S. HRG. 103-184

Corruption in Professional Hoxing-P..

ARINGS

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 10 AND APRIL 1, 1993

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65 _ 875± _ WASHINGTON : 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041441-5

S. Hrg. 103-184

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING— Part II

4. G 74/9: S. HRG. 103-184

rruptiot in Professional Boxing-P

n^ARINGS

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 10 AND APRIL 1, 1993

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

WV 2g

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-875^ WASHINGTON : 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041441-5

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

JOHN GLENN, Ohio, Chairman
SAM NUNN, Georgia WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware

CARL LEVIN, Michigan TED STEVENS, Alaska

JIM SASSER, Tennessee WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine

DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

Leonard Weiss, Staff Director

Franklin G. Polk, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

SAM NUNN, Georgia, Chairman
JOHN GLENN, Ohio, Vice Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware

JIM SASSER, Tennessee TED STEVENS, Alaska

DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JOHN McCAIN, Arizona

Eleanore Hill, Chief Counsel

Daniel F. Rinzel, Chief Counsel to the Minority

Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk

(II)

\f\ / [ERRATA]

\\A ' S. Hrg. 103-184

V CORRUPTION IN PROF ESSIONAL BOXING— Part II

V 4.G 74/9: S. HRG. 103-184/
5 T. 2/ERRATA

:orruptio§ in Professional Boxincj-P.

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 10 AND APRIL 1, 1993

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

DEC 2 893

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-875 £5 WASHINGTON : 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041441-5

[ERRATA]

Corruption in Professional Boxing— Part II

The above referenced hearing before the Senate Committee on
abor, was inadvertently printed with the incorrect publication
amber of S. HRG. 103-184.
The correct designation is S. HRG. 103-184, Part II.

CONTENTS

Opening statements: Page

Senator Nunn 1, 69

Senator Roth 2, 70

Senator Cohen 4

Senator Dorgan 5

Senator McCain 6

Senator Cochran 60

Prepared Statements:

Senator McCain 72

Senator Dorgan 73

WITNESSES

Wednesday, March 10, 1993

Hon. Bill Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Mexico 7

Stephen Levin, Minority Staff Counsel; accompanied by W. Leighton Lord III,
Minority Staff Counsel, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Com-
mittee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 16

Dr. Barry Jordan, Assistant Professor of Neurology and Public Health, Cor-
nell University Medical College; Medical Director, New York State Athletic
Commission; and Team Physician, U.S.A. Amateur Boxing Federation 39

Dr. Jack E. Battalia, Chairman, Oregon Boxing Commission, and Chairman,
International Boxing Federation Medical Commission 40

Dr. Timothy W. Ward, Chairman, Medical Advisory Board, Pennsylvania
State Athletic Commission 42

Seth G. Abraham, President, Time-Warner Sports (HBO) 56

Michael L. Aresco, Program Manager, ESPN, Inc 63

Thursday, April 1, 1993

Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano, Former Underboss, Gambino Orga-
nized Crime Family, accompanied by John Gleeson, Assistant U.S. Attor-
ney, Brooklyn, New York 75

W. Leighton Lord, III, Minority Staff Counsel; accompanied by Stephen Levin,
Minority Staff Counsel, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Com-
mittee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 90

Alfred Certissimo and James "Buddy" McGirt, Former WBC Welterweight
Champion, accompanied by Michael D'Chiara and Dino D'BliaBlias, Coun-
sel; and Stuart Weiner, accompanied by Edwin Schulman, Counsel 110

Edward Sciandra 131

Robert Goodman, Vice President, Madison Square Garden Boxing, accompa-
nied by Ken Munos, Madison Square Garden General Counsel 132

Mark Tuohey, Attorney for Iran Barkley, Reed, Smith, Shaw and McClay 141

Leonard Minuto, accompanied by Gerard Treanor and Preston Burton, Ca-
cheris and Treanor, Washington, D.C., Counsel 143

Andrew Licari, accompanied by Richard A. Rafanello, Shain, Schaffer &

Rafanello, Bernardsville, New Jersey, Counsel 144

(in)

Page

Alphabetical List of Witnesses

Abraham, Seth G.:

Testimony 56

Prepared Statement 153

Aresco, Michael L.:

Testimony 63

Prepared Statement 155

Battalia, (Dr.) Jack E.:

Testimony 40

Prepared Statement 150

Certissimo, Alfred:

Testimony 110

Goodman, Robert:

Testimony 132

Prepared Statement 158

Gravano, Salvatore "Sammy the Bull":

Testimony 75

Prepared Statement 156

Jordan, (Dr.) Barry:

Testimony 39

Prepared Statement 149

Levin, Stephen:

Testimony 16, 90

Prepared Statement 22, 95

Licari, Andrew:

Testimony 144

Prepared Statement 160

Lord, W. Leighton, III:

Testimony 16, 90

Prepared Statement 22, 95

McGirt, James "Buddy":

Testimony 110

Minuto, Leonard:

Testimony .". 143

Richardson, (Hon.) Bill:

Testimony 7

Prepared Statement 9

Sciandra, Edward:

Testimony 131

Tuohey, Mark:

Testimony 141

Ward, (Dr.) Timothy W.:

Testimony 42

Prepared Statement 151

Weiner, Stuart:

Testimony 110

APPENDIX

Prepared statements of witnesses in order of appearance 149

EXHIBIT LIST

Corruption in Professional Boxing: Part II

March 10, and April 1, 1993

Page

1. Chart, Organized Crime Involvement in Professional Boxing, prepared by

the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSD 163

2. Memorandum in support of Chart, Organized Crime Involvement in Pro-

fessional Boxing (SEALED) ,

3. Criminal records and other information in support of Chart, Organized

Crime Involvement in Professional Boxing (SEALED)

4. Chart, Flow of Funds — James "Buddy" McGirt vs. Simon Brown, Las

Vegas, Nevada, November 29, 1991, prepared by PSI 164

5. Chart, Alfred Certissimo, Inc., Check Nos. 1289 and 1291, dated March 31,

1990 165

6. Chart, Alfred Certissimo, Inc., Check No. 1841, dated November 29, 1991... 166

7. Surveillance videotape of Salvatore Gravano, Edward Sciandra, and

Joseph Corozzo

8. Still photographs of Salvatore Gravano, Edward Sciandra and Joseph

Corozzo from videotape 167

9. Joint Deposition of Thaddeus E. Watley and Richard Robinson, November

24 1992 *

10. Deposition of How^

11. Deposition of Elias Ghanem, M.D., February 5, 1993

12. Deposition of Alfred Felix Certissimo, December 1, 1992

13. Deposition of James W. McGirt, II, December 1, 1992

14. Deposition of Joseph Corozzo, Sr., December 14, 1992

15. Deposition of Iran Barkley, April 30, 1993 168

16. Deposition of Stanley Leonard Hoffman, January 14, 1993

17. Deposition of Iran Barkley, December 16, 1992

18. Letter dated September 28, 1992 from Congressman Kildee to Senator

Nunn regarding Mr. Michael Suski and his career as a professional
boxer. Attached contract prepared by Jackie Kallen

19. Letter dated November 18, 1992, from New Jersey Deputy Attorney Gen-

eral George Rover to Leighton Lord regarding Ricky Stackhouse fight
on September 11, 1992, held at Trump Plaza, New Jersey

20. Letter dated March 26, 1993, to Stephen H. Levin from Louis J. DiBella,

Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer,
Time Warner Sports 252

21. Correspondence from Colleen Patchin to Stephen H. Levin dated Novem-

ber 19, 1992 enclosing requested documents:

a. Nevada Athletic Commission Articles of Agreement for Cesford
"Simon" Brown and James "Buddy" McGirt 252

b. Signed sheet indicating fighters received a check for fighting 253

c. Request from James "Buddy" McGirt to have his check made payable

to Alfred Certissimo, Inc 254

d. Nevada license application for Stuart Weiner, dated November 22, 1991

22. Official Nevada Athletic Commission Boxing Contract between James

Toney and Iran Barkley, dated February 3, 1993

23. Letter to Stephen Levin from George N. Rover, dated March 3, 1993, with

attachments:

a. Application for a license to manage/second of Leonard Minuto, Jr. to
State of New Jersey Athletic Control Board, dated June 1, 1989

b. Application for a license to manage/second of Leonard Minuto, Jr. to
State of New Jersey Athletic Control Board, dated July 28, 1989

24. Letter from Robert M. Gutkowski, President and Chief Executive Officer

of Madison Square Garden, to Senator William V. Roth, Jr., dated
March 17, 1993

(v)

Page

25. Letter from Richard A. Rafanello to W. Leighton Lord III re: Andrew

Licari, dated March 29, 1993

26. Letter from Murray Richman to Stephen Levin re: Salvatore Pascale and

Renaldo Snipes, dated March 29, 1993

27. State Boxing Regulations of Alaska, California, Delaware, Georgia, Illi-

nois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York and Texas

28. Report — Compilation of State Boxing Laws and Regulations, prepared by

the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress

29. State of New Jersey Commission on Investigation, Executive Session

Testimony of Andrew Liccari, March 26, 1985. (SEALED) .....

30. State of New Jersey Commission on Investigation, Executive Session

Testimony of Andrew Dembrowski, March 26, 1985. (SEALED)

31. Affirmation of Alfonse D'Arco, In Re The Matter of: Corruption in Profes-

sional Boxing, March 12, 1993 255

32. FBI memorandum regarding John Joseph Conti and LCN infiltration into

the boxing industry, dated November 4, 1992. (SEALED) *

33. Letter from Carl Moretti to Mr. Steve Levin, dated December 2, 1992,

with attachments:

a. Check from Madison Square Garden Corporation to Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., dated July 2, 1991, for $50,000

b. Check from Madison Square Garden Corporation to Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., dated October 16, 1991, for $25,000

c. Check from Madison Square Garden to World Boxing Council, dated
November 26, 1991, for $18,750

d. Check from Madison Square Garden Corporation to Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., dated November 27, 1991, for $566,250

e. Check from Madison Square Garden Corporation to Alfred Certissimo,

Inc., dated November 27, 1991, for $40,000 256

f. Check from Madison Square Garden Corporation to Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., dated February 20, 1992, for $25,000

g. Check from Madison Square Garden Corporation to Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., dated March 13, 1992, for $25,000

h. Check #505344, marked "void," from Madison Square Garden to

Alfred Certissimo, Inc., dated November 27, 1991, for $40,000 257

i. Memorandum (undated) from Robert Goodman to Al Certo regarding a
$40,000 payment to Stu Weiner 258

34. Copy of Contract between Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc., and

James "Buddy" McGirt, dated December 12, 1990

35. Contract between Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc., and James

"Buddy" McGirt, dated March 5, 1991

36. Contract between Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc., and Don King

Productions, Inc., dated June 1991

37. Copy of promotional fee agreement between James "Buddy" McGirt and

Madison Square Garden Boxing, dated November 26, 1991

38. WBC Welterweight Championship Bout Agreement with Options, dated

November 26, 1991, signed by Bob Goodman, James "Buddy" McGirt,

and Al Certo 259

39. Application for Manager's License by Marco Minuto to New York State

Athletic Commission, dated October 5, 1977

40. Application for License to Manage/ Second by Stuart Weiner to New

Jersey State Athletic Control Board, dated July 2, 1988

41. Copy of Application for Second License by Alfred Certissimo to State

Athletic Commission of Nevada, dated November 20, 1991

42. Copy of License Application by Iran Barkley to the Nevada State Athletic

Commission, dated March 13, 1992

43. Article, "No Escaping Blame," Wallace Matthews, Newsdav, March 11,

1993

44. General Accounting Office analysis of Alfred Certissimo, Inc

45. Report, "Administration of Boxing: History and Regulatory Issues," Gary

L. Galemore, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Gov-
ernment Division, September 18, 1985

46. Article, "Fists Full of Dollars," Richard Hoffer, Sports Illustrated, Janu-

ary 15, 1990, p. 94

47. Deposition of Andrew L. Licari, March 25, 1993

48. Still photograph of Edward Sciandra with Nicodemo Scarfo and Joseph

Todaro 265

Page

4Q rnrresoondence from Bruce Anderson, Oregon Boxing and Wrestling
49 " ^Commrssfonto Steve Levin dated May 4, ^f^Z^uSTl^

PSI Hearings, on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 ana it, ^

SO.D^ti^

* Can be found in the files of the Subcommittee

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Part II

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1993

U.S. Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room
SD-342 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Nunn, Chair-
man of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Nunn, Roth, Dorgan, Cohen, Cochran, and
McCain.

Staff Present: Eleanore J. Hill, Chief Counsel; Mary D. Robert-
son, Chief Clerk; Harold B. Lippman, Investigator; Cynthia Corn-
stock, Executive Assistant to Chief Counsel; Daniel F. Rinzel, Mi-
nority Chief Counsel; Stephen H. Levin, Minority Counsel; Mary E.
Michels, Minority Counsel; W. Leighton Lord III, Minority Counsel;
Scott Orchard, Minority Investigator; Sallie B. Cribbs, Minority Ex-
ecutive Assistant to the Chief Counsel; Carla J. Martin, Minority
Assistant Chief Clerk; Dale Cabaniss, Senator Stevens; Jennifer
Urff; Senator Dorgan; Gene Harrington, Senator Dorgan; Paul Bru-
baker, Senator Cohen; Matt Frost, Senator Cohen; Grant Fox, Sen-
ator Cochran; and Paul Feeney, Senator McCain.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NUNN

Senator Nunn. The Subcommittee will come to order.

This morning, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
continues our examination of regulatory problems and health and
safety in professional boxing. The hearings today and those sched-
uled for later this month build on the hearings held last August,
which resulted from an investigation initiated by the Subcommit-
tee's ranking minority member, Senator Roth, and his staff.

In August, professional boxers, State boxing commissioners,
boxing experts, and other boxing industry representatives offered
testimony that raised questions about the role of State regulatory
agencies and sanctioning bodies in protecting the interests of pro-
fessional boxers. Since the August hearing, Senator Roth and his
staff have been following up on the testimony presented at that
time.

In today's hearings, we will be receiving additional testimony on
health, safety, and other related issues. I believe that today's testi-
mony will focus on alleged weaknesses and loopholes within profes-

(l)

sional boxing's regulatory structures and national governing
bodies.

We will hear first from Representative Bill Richardson of New
Mexico. Bill, we are delighted to have you here this morning. For
many years, Congressman Richardson has strongly favored the es-
tablishment of a Federal entity to regulate and oversee profession-
al boxing in our country.

Following his testimony, the minority staff will present a sum-
mary of the findings arising from their most recent work.

Following them will be a panel of medical experts who will dis-
cuss various health and safety issues such as injuries experienced
by boxers and reforms that may help prevent these injuries.

Finally, we will hear from two cable television network execu-
tives who will discuss the nature of their industry's involvement in
professional boxing.

As I have so many times in the past, I again thank and commend
Senator Roth and his staff for their hard, diligent work.

Professional boxing has long been a means for easily exploiting
disadvantaged youth to try to escape their otherwise limited cir-
cumstances. As such, it is important that the industry and its regu-
lators recognize the need to maintain appropriate health and safety
standards to protect those young men who are drawn to the sport
as a means to achieve fame and fortune.

With that in mind, I look forward to today's testimony and I am
turning the gavel over to Senator Roth, who will conduct the hear-
ing.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROTH

Senator Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
appreciation for your cooperation and that of your staff.

Our previous hearings revealed, as you mentioned, gaps in box-
ing's regulatory structure that threaten the very foundation of the
sport. Boxing regulators from several States testified that if boxing
is not cleaned up, it is in danger of driving itself out of existence.

We have learned that boxers are frequently exploited financially,
that they have little power to protect their own interests. The fi-
nancial power in boxing is overwhelmingly tilted towards promot-
ers, managers, and those who pay the freight for the big fights,
usually television.

The State regulatory agencies, the athletic commissions, or the
boxing commissioners are supposed to stand between the boxer and
the people with the financial power in order to protect the boxers.
We heard testimony last August, and we will hear more today,
about how even the most well-intentioned State regulators find
their rules easily evaded.

For example, Nevada has a rule against option contracts which
tie boxers to a particular promoter for multiple fights. Promoters
routinely evade that regulation even for fights held in Nevada by
having multiple contracts for the same fight, a Nevada contract
with no options and another real contract which includes options.
Whatever one's opinion about the fairness of option contracts, the
fact is that the Nevada regulation has little effect.

State regulators are supposed to protect the health and safety of
boxers. How well is that function being performed? We heard testi-
mony last August from the New York Boxing Commissioner about
a boxer named Ricky Stackhouse. Stackhouse was banned from
boxing in New York because he was considered as no longer having
the ability to adequately defend himself. Stackhouse was also
banned in Florida for the same reason, but nevertheless was subse-
quently allowed to fight in Detroit, Michigan, not just against any
fighter, but against IBF middleweight champion James Toney, and,
predictably, Stackhouse was knocked out in the third round of the
fight.

The New York Commissioner testified as to the travesty of a reg-
ulatory system that would allow this boxer to continue to box any-
where. Seated next to the New York Commissioner when he testi-
fied here in August was the New Jersey Boxing Commissioner. And
where did Ricky Stackhouse next appear in the ring? In Atlantic
City, New Jersey, 4 months after our August hearing, where he
was knocked out again in the third round. Well, so much for health
and safety.

Under boxing's current regulatory structure, young boxers like
Dave Tiberi from Delaware are denied victories they win in the
ring, organized crime figures are allowed to assert influence in the
boxing business, and the health and the safety of boxers is not pro-
tected as it should be.

Boxing has, for decades, provided opportunity to young men,
many of whom are underprivileged, to advance themselves. These
young men deserve much better assurance that their health and
safety, as well as their financial earnings, will be better protected
than under the current inadequate regulatory system.

Today we will hear important testimony about health and safety
issues from several respected and knowledgeable physicians. In ad-
dition, we will hear testimony from HBO Sports and ESPN, the
cable sports channel. HBO arguably plays one of the most impor-
tant roles in the business of boxing today. ESPN broadcasts more
boxing shows than any other entity.

We hope to hear at a later date about the current influence of
organized crime in professional boxing.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and sup-
port.

Prepared Statement of Senator Roth

In August of last year, this Subcommittee held 2 days of hearings on the profes-
sional boxing industry. As we continue our investigation today and in the future, I
want to commend Senator Nunn for his leadership in pursuing this important inves-
tigation, and I want to thank his staff for their support.

Our previous hearings revealed gaps in boxing's regulatory structure that threat-
en the very foundation of the sport. Boxing regulators from several States testified
that if boxing is not cleaned up, it is in danger of driving itself out of existence.

We learned that boxers are frequently exploited financially, and that they have
little power to protect their own interests. The financial power in boxing is over-
whelmingly tilted towards promoters, managers and those who pay the freight for
the big fights, usually television.

The State regulatory agencies, the athletic commissions, or the boxing commis-
sioners, are supposed to stand between the boxer and the people with the financial
power in order to protect the boxers. But we heard testimony last August, and we
will hear more today, about how even the most well intentioned State regulators
find their rules easily evaded. For example, Nevada has a rule against option con-

tracts which tie boxers to a particular promoter for multiple fights. Promoters rou-
tinely evade that regulation even for fights held in Nevada by having multiple con-
tracts for the same fight — a Nevada contract with no options and another "real"
contract which includes options. Whatever one's opinion about the fairness of option
contracts, the fact is that the Nevada regulation has little effect.

State regulators are supposed to protect the health and safety of boxers. How well
is that function being performed? We heard testimony last August from the New
York Boxing Commissioner about a boxer named Ricky Stackhouse. Stackhouse was
banned from boxing in New York because he was considered as no longer having
the ability to adequately defend himself. Stackhouse was also banned in Florida for
the same reason, but nevertheless was subsequently allowed to fight in Detroit,
Michigan — not just against any fighter, but against IBF middleweight champion
James Toney. Predictably, Stackhouse was knocked out in the 3rd round of the
fight.

The New York Commissioner testified as to the travesty of a regulatory system
that would allow this boxer to continue to box anywhere. Seated next to the New
York Commissioner when he testified here in August was the New Jersey Boxing
Commissioner. And where did Ricky Stackhouse next appear in the ring? In Atlan-
tic City, New Jersey, 4 months after our August hearing, where he was knocked out
again in the 3rd round. So much for health and safety.

Under boxing's current regulatory structure, young boxers like Dave Tiberi from
Delaware are denied victories they win in the ring, organized crime figures are al-
lowed to assert influence in the boxing business, and the health and safety of boxers
is not protected.

Boxing has, for decades, provided opportunity to young men, many of whom are
underprivileged, to advance themselves. These young men, however, deserve much
better assurance that their health and safety as well as their financial earnings will
be better protected than under the current inadequate regulatory system.

Today we will hear important testimony about health and safety issues from sev-
eral respected and knowledgeable physicians. In addition, we will hear testimony
from representatives of HBO Sports and ESPN, the cable sports channel. HBO argu-
ably plays one of the most important roles in the business of boxing today. ESPN
broadcasts more boxing shows than any other entity.

We hope to hear further testimony at a later date about the current influence of
organized crime in professional boxing.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and support.

Senator Nunn. Thank you, Senator Roth.

I believe that Congressman Richardson is the first witness to
appear this morning.

Senator Roth. That is correct.

Senator Nunn. Senator Cohen, do you have a statement?

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COHEN

Senator Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I have a brief
statement I would like to insert in the record and will just offer a
couple of comments.

This is a continuation, as both, you and Senator Roth have indi-
cated, of hearings that began last fall. What is striking to me is the
fact that no action whatsoever has been taken by the boxing com-
munity in the wake of those initial hearings. Ordinarily, when a
Senate hearing or investigation is undertaken, at least most indus-
tries make some symbolic steps toward reform in order to stave off
what otherwise might be some far-reaching Federal regulation.

In this particular case, the boxing community has done nothing.
They have simply decided to place intransigence over intelligence. I
would simply say to the boxing community that boxing is going to
have to change if it is going to survive. Those who are in positions
to make these decisions ought to be taking some steps right now in
order to provide for uniform rules and testings and oversight, if

they are going to avoid having the Congress impose some far-reach-
ing measures.

I hope that we will continue this effort to look into the inadequa-
cies of the state-regulated boxing provisions, the inadequacies of
medical oversight, and the lack of oversight of those who are really
responsible for organizing and promoting boxing.

Prepared Statement of Senator Cohen

I would like to thank the Chairman and Senator Roth for holding this hearing to
examine the regulation of professional boxing.

Last August, this Subcommittee began its investigation of corruption in profes-
sional boxing with 2 days of hearings into fight fixing and the influence of organized
crime. Today we will pick up where we left off and explore some of the important
issues that we touched on last year. We will inquire into the deficiencies of the cur-
rent state-regulated boxing system, the inadequate medical oversight of boxing, and
the licensing of those who wield the power in boxing.

Boxing must change if it is to survive. Boxing supporters have always parried the
charge that boxing is a brutal, atavistic sport with the reply that boxing offers an
avenue of escape for underprivileged young men willing to sweat and bleed for a
better life. This romantic, rags-to-riches picture is increasingly overshadowed by the
seamier snapshots of boxing — of Duk Koo Kim lying dead of a brain injury; of
throngs of advisors, promoters, and managers picking the pockets of naive young
boxers; of talented boxers cast by the wayside because, though they can pack a
punch, they can't pack a crowd.

Unfortunately, the boxing community seems to be a little slow on the uptake. In
the wake of a Senate hearing, other industries would have made at least some sym-
bolic effort at reform. The boxing community, however, has unwisely decided to put
intransigence before intelligence, and has taken no serious steps towards self-im-
provement.

I believe that it is vital that the boxing community move to assure boxing critics
and fans alike that it has the best interests of young fighters in mind. I hope never
again to have to hear stories of punch-dulled fighters, shuffling from state to state
to escape lifetime bans and make a few hundred bucks. If the powers that be in
boxing hope to forestall Federal regulation in this arena, I would strongly suggest
that they begin to work together to develop uniform standards for boxing and a cen-
tral database to contain fighter information.

I believe that this hearing offers a sterling opportunity to diagnose the ailments
afflicting the current state-regulated boxing system and to explore possible cures for
these maladies. I also hope that it may provide the platform for any necessary legis-
lative prescription for change.

Senator Nunn. Thank you very much, Senator Cohen.

We are pleased to welcome two new Subcommittee members.
Senator McCain is certainly not new to the Senate. Senator
Dorgan, we welcome you to this Subcommittee. Senator McCain. I
believe you have just become a member of the Subcommittee. We
are delighted to have both of you here. Of course, Senator McCain,
being on the same Committee is not new to us. We have been on
the same Armed Services Committee for a long time, but we know
both of you are going to make a real contribution.

I call on Senator Dorgan for any opening statement, and then
Senator McCain.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DORGAN

Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

I want to simply make note that my former colleague, Congress-
man Richardson, is with us. I have worked with Bill for about 8
years on boxing legislation over in the House. At one point, I spon-
sored my own legislation. In the last Congress and in the previous

Congress to that, I joined Congressman Richardson in cosponsoring
his legislation. I have an abiding interest in this issue.

I am not a boxer. If I were a boxer, I wouldn't be a very good
boxer, but I enjoy the sport. It is indeed, in my judgment, a sport
that is in desperate need of some kind of regulation and oversight
to protect the health, safety, security and future of young people
who all too often are used and abused by people who don't care
very much for the human side of the sport.

So I want to welcome my former colleague, Mr. Richardson. I am
anxious to hear him testify and I am anxious to work with Senator
Roth and others who have an interest in this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Nunn. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.

Senator McCain.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you and Senator Roth for your efforts on what I believe is a very
important issue to Americans who may not in any way be interest-
ed in politics.

Boxing is a compelling sport. I happen to be an avid boxing fan,
and there is a clear need to enact legislation somewhat along the
lines that Senator Roth and our friend from New Mexico, Congress-
man Richardson, have been involved in for a long time.

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Seth Abraham, who is going to be
testifying here today, who is, of course, intimately involved in the
issue on behalf of HBO, reminded me of a comment made by
Damian Runyon, that boxing is the red-light district of sports, and
I think that that is a very accurate description of the industry
today. At the same time, it provides a degree of involvement and
support that is really kind of unique because it is a unique kind of
an athletic contest, as we know.

So I think that we have to not only address Senator Roth's bill
but I would also at some point like to see this whole business of
who is on first and the alphabet soup of boxing organizations —
there is an article in this month's Ring Magazine entitled "Who
the Man," and it says, pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain, especially if it is Jose Sulaiman, the Lizard of Oz, but Rid-
dick Bowe lost the undisputed heavyweight championship of the
world by not agreeing to fight Lennox Lewis. It has nothing to do
with alphabets. It has nothing to do with business as usual.

The fact is that there is a lack of confidence on the part of the
American people that every fighter of quality and talent is given
an equal opportunity, which is unfortunately too often dictated by
who he is associated with as opposed to his individual talents.

So I would like to see us also, Senator Roth, I know how impor-
tant the basics of this are, maybe explore a little bit that aspect of
the boxing industry with especially our ESPN and HBO witnesses.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Senator Roth also for
his many-year effort on, I think, what is an important issue to mil-
lions of Americans.

Senator Nunn. Thank you, Senator McCain.

Congressman Richardson, we are pleased to have you this morn-
ing. I know you have worked long and hard on this subject. We
swear in all the witnesses before the Subcommittee and we have
never had any exceptions, so we will ask you to take the oath, if
you would, before you testify.

Do you swear the testimony you give before this Subcommittee to
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?

Mr. Richardson. Yes, I do.

Senator Nunn. We are pleased to have you and we welcome your
testimony.

TESTIMONY OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. Richardson. Thank you, Senator Roth, thank you, Senator
Nunn, members of the Subcommittee.

First of all, let me express my delight in having such interest in
this body for this legislation. I think as Mr. Dorgan may have men-
tioned, in the House for years we have tried to get legislation
passed. We did succeed one session, but unfortunately it didn't
move beyond the House.

So I am delighted with this Subcommittee's activity. You have al-
ready made a difference. Senator Roth, thank you, because you
have raised the awareness of this issue throughout the country,
something that we were not able to do in the House, so I think to
all of you, you have already made a difference and I thank you.

As you know, I have long pursued legislative action in the House
to establish minimum health and safety standards for professional
boxing and I look forward to working with this Subcommittee so
that finally, this calendar year, perhaps, we can pass legislation
that will become law.

The regulation of professional boxing today is best described as a
non-system. Forty-two States and the District of Columbia regulate
boxing. Each State determines the extent to which it will or will
not regulate the sport. Herein lies the major health and safety
problem in professional boxing. There are no uniform standards in
existence. Thus, a boxer unfit to fight in one State can simply go
fight in another State with less stringent or no health and safety
standards.

For example, in 1990 a great fighter by the name of Aaron Pryor
was diagnosed as legally blind in his left eye. Most States consid-
ered him unfit to fight and wouldn't grant him a license. Willing to
risk fighting with a blind eye, Aaron Pryor simply went to the
State of Wisconsin, which had no boxing commission, and received
a license to fight through the Wisconsin Department of Regulation
and Licensing. The Department clearly had no qualifications to
regulate boxing or grant such a license, but because the State had
no boxing commission and no uniform health and safety regula-
tions, Aaron Pryor was allowed to fight.

Another major problem in the sport is that there is little coordi-
nation between the States to keep track of the won /loss records of
professional fighters. A boxer may have different won /loss records
in several States. Sports Illustrated ran an article that described a

fighter, whose manager listed his won /loss record at 15 wins and
19 losses. Minnesota listed him at 17-27-1, and Texas listed him at
6-7. The absence of a national tracking system allows gross mis-
matches to occur which threaten the health and safety of the fight-
ers.

Clearly, the sport, professional boxing, needs to be cleaned up.
Mismatches are frequent, health and safety of boxers is not a con-
sideration of many promoters, State regulation is in many cases in-
adequate, and existing organizations are not adequately addressing
health and safety problems.

Professional boxing can bring fame and fortune to a lucky few,
but most professional boxers fight one-too-many fights and take
one-too-many punches. Too often, people think of professional fight-
ers are being successful ones like Riddick Bowe or Mike Tyson or
Julio Cesar Chavez, but there are thousands upon thousands,
mainly minority, black and Hispanic fighters who don't make it,
who are abused, who are sacrificed on the altar of money and greed
and many times are forgotten, and they leave the sport decimated
physically, financially, and it is to those that we owe a special re-
sponsibility. As I said, ultimately the losers in this situation are
the no-name boxers who wind up with nothing.

As an avid boxing fan, like many of you, I want to see this sport
continue to be a popular sport. I don't favor banning the sport. I
think that makes little sense. The best way to ensure that boxing
remains a popular sport is to protect the health and safety of the
fighters themselves.

In this effort, I have long proposed, along with many of you, the
establishment of a Federal Boxing Corporation with a mandate to
work with State boxing authorities to develop uniform minimum
health and safety standards for professional boxing.

Specifically, the Corporation would issue regulations for physical
and mental examinations, issue standards for medical services at
boxing matches, issue standards to ensure the use of safe boxing
equipment, issue regulations to prevent conflicts of interest related
to boxing matches, and other safety-regulated regulations, in addi-
tion to trying to set up a pension system for fighters so that they
have some kind of security and protection after they finish their
fighting.

Each State regulating professional boxing would be required to
develop a boxing plan in compliance with the minimum standards
established by the Federal Boxing Corporation. The Corporation
would have legal authority to enforce full compliance with such
regulations.

In addition, the Corporation would be required to establish a na-
tional computer source that will contain a list of professional
boxers, medical records, won/loss records, and other pertinent in-
formation. Based on this information, the Corporation would issue
a license to each individual associated with a professional boxing
match who meets the minimum standards. Registration and licens-
ing fees would be collected and deposited into the U.S. Treasury to
fund the Corporation so that no taxpayer dollars are spent, except
perhaps for an initial start-up loan that would be fully repaid.

Senator Roth introduced similar legislation in the Senate last
Congress and I am pleased to be working with him and others in

the Subcommittee to come up with legislation that we can all joint-
ly introduce in this Congress.

Again, as I stated, it is my sincere hope that in this session of
Congress we can pass this legislation, and again to all my Senate
colleagues, it is wonderful to see you actively interested in this
issue. I think we need to move. I want to work with you, and I
thank you for allowing me this opportunity.

Prepared Statement of Congressman Richardson

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding this hearing on health and
safety issues with respect to professional boxing. As you know, I have long pursued
legislative action in the House to establish minimum health and safety standards
for professional boxing. I am enlightened to see interest in this issue by the Senate
through this Subcommittee and the lead role of Senator Roth.

The regulation of professional boxing today is best described as a non-system.
Forty-two States and the District of Columbia regulate boxing. Each State deter-
mines the extent to which it will, or will not, regulate boxing. Herein lies the major
health and safety problem in professional boxing — there are no uniform standards
in existence. Thus, a boxer unfit to fight in one State can simply go fight in another
State with less stringent or no health and safety standards.

Another major problem in professional boxing is that there is little coordination
between the States to register or keep track of the won /loss records of professional
fighters. A boxer may have different won/ loss records in several different States.
The absence of a national tracking system allows gross mismatches to occur which
threaten the health and safety of the fighters.

Clearly, professional boxing needs to be "cleaned up." Mismatches are frequent,
health and safety of boxers is not a consideration of many promoters, State regula-
tion is in many cases inadequate and existing organizations are not adequately ad-
dressing health and safety problems. Professional boxing can bring fame and for-
tune to a lucky few, but most professional boxers fight one-to-many fights and take
one-to-many punches.

As an avid boxing fan, I want to see that professional boxing continues to be a
popular sport. The best way to ensure that boxing remains a credible and popular
sport is to protect the health and safety of the fighters themselves. In this effort, I
have long proposed the establishment of a Federal Boxing Corporation with a man-
date to work with State boxing authorities to develop uniform minimum health and
safety standards for professional boxing. Specifically, the Corporation would issue
regulations for physical and mental examinations, issue standards for medical serv-
ices at boxing matches, issue standards to ensure the use of safe boxing equipment,
issue regulations to prevent conflicts of interest related to boxing matches, and
other safety-regulated regulations. Each State regulating professional boxing would
be required to develop a boxing plan in compliance with the minimum standards
established by the Federal Boxing Corporation. The Corporation would have legal
authority to enforce full compliance with such regulations.

In addition, the Corporation would be required to establish a national computer
source that will contain a list of professional boxers, medical records, won /loss
records, and other pertinent information. Based on this information, the Corpora-
tion would issue a license to each individual associated with a professional boxing
match who meets the minimum standards. Registration and licensing fees would be
collected and deposited into the U.S. Treasury to fund the Corporation so that no
taxpayer dollars are spent except for an initial start-up loan that would be fully
repaid.

Senator Roth introduced similar legislation in the Senate last Congress and I am
pleased to be working with him to come up with compromise legislation that we can
introduce this Congress. It is my sincere hope that we can pass legislation this Con-
gress and avoid needless deaths and injuries in the ring. Thank you for this opportu-
nity to testify.

Senator Nunn. Thtank you very much, Congressman Richardson.

I am going to turn it over to Senator Roth for the first round of
questions, and then Senator Roth, I am going to have to be in and
out this morning, so I would really like for you to preside.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to welcome my good friend and colleague, Bill
Richardson. I have had the pleasure of working with him on other
issues. I know him to be a fighter for what he believes in and I
can't express enough my respect and thanks for the leadership he
is showing in this particular issue.

Congressman Richardson, what do you see as the aspects of pro-
fessional boxing most in need of reforms?

Mr. Richardson. Well, Senator, within the purview of this Con-
gress, I do think that the initial concentration should be to deal
with the health and safety of boxers. What you have been doing in
your hearings I think is paramount. We have to set up these uni-
form standards. We have to have each State commission have mini-
mum health and safety standards. We have to have this computer
tracking system. I believe that that has to be a priority.

Second, what Senator McCain said, I just don't know how you
pui a legislative handle on it. There are many "international
boxing associations" whose rankings and activities sometimes are
very suspect, and because they operate in foreign countries, one in
Mexico, one in Venezuela, you can't get a handle on their activity
because they are not incorporated in this country. Many times,
these entities establish these gross mismatches.

One leverage that we have over them is the licensing fee that
they have to pay the promoters when they accept the fight to be a
championship fight, a sanctioning fee, rather. So I think we have to
deal with those issues relating to the international corporations
that govern boxing.

And third, Senator Roth, I think we have to be careful about
overregulating the sport. Professional football, professional basket-
ball, they have czars that establish some kind of regulation. Boxing
doesn't even have that. That doesn't mean that we have an entire-
ly government entity regulating the sport, I think the free market
has to operate, but those two areas, health and safety, and some
kind of handle to deal with the international bodies.

And perhaps fourth, I think it is a conflict of interest for a fight-
er to have a promoter and a manager as both the same person. I
don't think that should be. That is a gross conflict of interest that
exists dramatically in the sport, and if there is a way we can dis-
courage that or not have it, I would support that. Those would be
the three areas.

Senator Roth. One further question, in a lot of sports there is
self-regulation, and frankly I would like to see that take place here,
but do you see that as a realistic possibility, that boxing can be an-
ticipated to adopt self-regulation in an effective way?

Mr. Richardson. Senator Roth, when Congressman Dorgan and I
pushed this legislation in the House the last 8 years, our hope
would be that boxing self regulate, and I think Senator Cohen men-
tioned that signals were sent for the sport to do something about
some of these health and safety problems and it didn't happen. We
need to step in.

I do think, again, that there are some State commissions, and to
be fair, I think New York, Nevada in many cases have very strict
and good safety requirements. But you go beyond those States and
there are hardly any requirements. I am not saying the require-
ments in these States are perfect, but I have been encouraged.

I had a meeting in New York recently with some officials from
the New York State Boxing Commission and I would say that they
have become rather vigilant, but that is one State. We have many
other states.

But I do think we need to act, and what we are doing in terms of
minimum health and safety standards I don't believe is regulation.
If we set up a Federal Boxing Commission that started to rank
fighters, I think that would be a problem, Senator. I do think that
that is probably best left to boxing people, legitimate boxing enti-
ties, but when you have four or five championship entities and you
have a number of other rating systems and many times those
rating systems are governed by promoters and money that deals
more with the financial aspects of a fight as opposed to legitimate
rankings, I think, as Senator McCain said, we need to have some
kind of regulation.

Senator Roth. Part of the problem, if I understand what you are
saying, is that even if you had effective regulation within a State,
it is so easy to avoid by going into other States, and then, of course,
as Senator McCain brought out, you have the international prob-
lem.

Mr. Richardson. That is right, Senator. You can be a fighter and
get knocked out in one State and then 2 days later appear in an-
other State where they didn't know about the previous fight — there
is no tracking system, there is no record of the fighter — and you
can get knocked out again, and this jeopardizes the health of the
fighter.

And many times, I think what we are doing is helping the fight-
ers. There are hundreds of thousands of young men around this
country and around the world that are not the Riddick Bowes, that
are not the great champions that we read about that are success-
ful, and those are the individuals that I think we have a responsi-
bility to protect, and the fan. I think that the fan needs to be as-
sured that the fights are legitimate and that there is health and
safety and that the sport is on the uptake.

Senator Roth. Otherwise the sport will die.

Mr. Richardson. Yes, Senator.

Senator Roth. Senator Dorgan.

Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much.

It is interesting that, for example, the anti-trust exemption given
to baseball by the Congress and the government allows them to es-
tablish their own government. In effect, some major league sports
establish their own government because we have said they shall
not be subject to anti-trust laws.

I understand your admonition. We don't want to establish a gov-
ernment-run boxing system in this country. By the same token, we
are not so much talking about reform of the system because there
isn't a system. There really isn't any system.

Sports Illustrated did a piece on a fighter called Mouse, who
some in this room may have seen fight around the country. I have
seen him fight a couple of times. Mouse — that is his nickname —
Mouse is an opponent. He gets knocked out in one State 1 night
and 3 days later he gets knocked out in another State. He has
claimed to have been knocked out more than any other fighter in
the history of boxing, and he makes his living going around getting

knocked out. I guess Mouse is retired now. Mouse was also a pro-
moter, as he was a fighter.

That rather interesting article in Sports Illustrated, a lengthy ar-
ticle about boxing and about the opponent, described the names no
one would recognize and what happens to those folks in the sport
of boxing. It desperately calls for the construction of a new
system — not a reformation of the old system because there is no
system. So that is what we are talking about. We are talking about
constructing a system that doesn't create a governmental boxing
entity so much as it tries to describe some uniformity and health
and safety rules and so forth.

Mr. Richardson, you have called for, and I have supported you in
calling for ; the establishment of a commission in the Labor Depart-
ment that would really establish uniform rules. Let me ask you,
how would that bill relate to the problems we're discussing here? I
understand how it would relate to a fighter. You have to register,
all your fights have to be entered in the computer so we know
when you fought, what your record is, what happened to you, when
you were last knocked out, and so on. So I understand how it would
relate to the fighter.

How would a boxing commission of that type relate to the gov-
erning organizations — for example, WBA, WBC — some of which op-
erate outside the country and then do business in this country? I
wrote to one of them a couple of months ago and I said, you know,
I would like to know a little bit about your organization. How do
you operate? What are your bylaws? Who makes decisions? What is
your revenue base? I not only didn't get the right answers, I didn't
get a response to my inquiry.

How would a boxing commission relate to the central organiza-
tions that now seem to control most of boxing in this country?

Mr. Richardson. Well, Senator Dorgan, what the boxing commis-
sion, the establishment would have fundamentally a bully pulpit
value ihat would hopefully be accepted by all boxing organizations.

Second, and I think this is what Senator McCain mentioned, how
do you deal with the WBC in Caracas, Venezuela, that allows so-
and-so to become a champion? I think the way to deal with it is use
a sanctioning fee. As you know, in order for a championship fight
to take place and the WBC belt is on the line, the promoter has to
pay that organization some kind of a sanctioning fee, and since
most of the financial activity of our networks originates generally
in the United States, I think there is a source of leverage, but that
is something that we need to do.

We need to establish that these, perhaps on an informal basis,
because I think that the only national boxing entity that is in the
United States is the IBF, the International Boxing Federation
based in New Jersey, to ensure that these international organiza-
tions comply with this legislation. But what this boxing corporation
would do, they would issue licenses for any fighter, American and
non-American fighting in the United States, to fight, so you do
have some leverage. The same with cut-man managers, physicians.
The boxing people would basically go to this commission to get cer-
tified, to get licenses. So you do exercise a source of leverage over
the boxing community.

Senator Dorgan. The other side of it, on the sporting side of it, it
is now a joke in boxing. You have so many champions in so many
different divisions. It used to be when Rocky Marciano was the
heavyweight champion, he was the heavyweight champion. And
my guess is the construction of these different bodies really has
only to do with money.

If you construct a range of different governing bodies, what you
do is create another network of champions. What does that do?
That translates into money because you can sell a championship
fight. This is true despite the fact this person is a champion in
name by an organization that was created to manufacture champi-
ons for the purpose of money, I would guess. I mean, the whole
thing has become a joke in a lot of ways. This is tragic, because I
think boxing is a sport that has a wonderful tradition and a won-
derful history.

And I agree with you, Mr. Richardson, I don't think boxing ought
to be banned. I certainly think under conditions that many fighters
fight in today, it is unsafe, but I would not like to see it banned.

Let me just say that the work you have done is very important. I
recall one evening maybe 6, 7 years ago when you and I and people
like Lou Duva, Emanuel Steward, and so many other experts in
boxing who handle fighters spent the entire evening talking about
what should be done. The menu and the recipe of what should be
done hasn't changed a bit. It is just that 5 or 6 years have gone by
and we haven't gotten it done.

We really need to do this for the sake of the young fighters out
there who are risking their lives under the current circumstances.
We need to do this to clean up boxing and make it safe for the
fighters, I commend your active interest and I hope this year we
can get this done.

Senator Roth. Is this proliferation of titles partly the conse-
quence of the big money TV, is that

Mr. Richardson. I would say so, Senator Roth. I do think that it
is not just television, and I will say that there are a lot of boxing
people that want reform and some are in the networks and some
are promoters. It is not

Senator Roth. That is correct.

Mr. Richardson [continuing]. That everyone is against resisting
reform, significant elements are.

But yes, I think Mr. Dorgan is right. When you can certify that
there are more heavyweight champions, you have more heavy-
weight championship fights, more money is to be made, and some
of the champions are rather dubious as you get into the lower
weight classes. It would be nice if you have one boxing organization
that rates all the fighters, but unfortunately the trend is towards
increasing. There is now a new one, the WBO, so you could conceiv-
ably have four champions in one weight division and that forces
them to fight each other.

Now there is nothing wrong with that competitive market
system, but I do think the public is better served by one organiza-
tion that fully complies with our laws, that fully is able to protect
the fighter, and some international organizations, some boxing or-
ganizations, are more pro-health and safety than the others. The

problem is exactly that, the lack of uniform health and safety
standards of any kind.

Senator Roth. Senator McCain.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up on Senator Dorgan's comments, in this month's
issue of Ring Magazine they have the ring ratings for May of 1948,
every name, even as young as Congressman Richardson is, he
would know and recognize and remember: Marcel Cerdan, Kid Ga-
vilan, Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Sandy Sandler. There were
eight boxing divisions that we all knew and appreciated, and there
was one champion for each.

Now, as another page in Ring Magazine shows, there are 16
weight divisions. As an avid boxing fan, I can tell you I don't know
Sung Kil Moon, and I don't know Yuri Arbachakov or Myung Woo
Yuh. Frankly, I think it hurts boxing in the long run to have this
proliferation of weight classes, and if we list all the other organiza-
tions you talked about — including WBC, North American Boxing
Federation, IBF, etc. — it adds up to enormous confusion. I don't
think that the American people and sports fans are fooled for very
long when certain bouts are billed as a "championship fight." I rec-
ognize this situation may not be the most important part of this
hearing, however.

I would like to get back, Congressman Richardson, just briefly to
this business of how we would prevent this proliferation of organi-
zations. One of the reasons why I think we ought to look at it a
second is because we have seen a recurring phenomena. A boxer,
and I do not mean this in any way to be ethnic or nationalistic —
usually from an Asian country somewhere that none of us has ever
heard of — is designated as the "No. 1 contender" which a champion
is then forced to fight. Otherwise the champion risks losing the so-
called "title." Invariably that person, whom no one has ever heard
of and has generally never fought in the U.S., is now in a multi-
million dollar fight, and it usually ends within two or three rounds.
Due to one of the international boxing organizations based outside
the U.S. having designated that unknown boxer as the "No. 1 con-
tender," the fans are cheated. They are cheated badly on that type
of mismatch.

Mr. Chairman, in my view, and I would like to hear Congress-
man Richardson's view, perhaps we could in this legislation set up
some form of sanctioning that this organization would have to, in
order for that fight to take place in the United States of America,
to be sanctioned by this commission as indeed the legitimate con-
tenders and champions. I wonder if Congressman Richardson has a
view on that.

Mr. Richardson. Well, Senator McCain, I would favor that, and I
think Senator Dorgan will tell you that in the old days we were
leery about putting something like that in for fear that some would
charge us with overregulating, but I do think we need that. I think
the leverage, as I said before, is the sanctioning fee, that for in-
stance a promoter or a network will pay, say, the WBA, for a fight
to exist. And I think in the WBA, most of the fights, most of the
championship fights seem to be in Las Vegas, Nevada, Atlantic
City, Madison Square Garden, in the United States, usually involv-

ing American fighters, that they should comply with this commis-
sion and they should observe the rules and laws of this commission.

So I would favor that, Senator McCain, and I would hope we find
a way to deal with that.

Let me also say I am delighted to know that there is a member
of the Congress besides myself that reads Ring Magazine. [Laugh-
ter.]

Mr. Richardson. I thought I was

Senator McCain. The editor of Ring Magazine said, "What could
the government do to boxing that it hasn't already done to itself?"
[Laughter.]

Senator McCain. As one who is generally not in favor of regula-
tion, Mr. Chairman, I agree with his views in this regard.

Finally, I would ask Congressman Richardson — and I know we
have other witnesses, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for the length of
time — Bobby Czyz, who was an excellent fighter, as we all know,
made the following recommendations at the last hearing. He said,
boxing organizations could reform the treatment of their athletes,
including having one set of rules regulating fights, making sure
that mismatches are not as prevalent, setting aside money for a
pension fund — I think it is the only major sport in America that
does not have a pension fund and probably needs it more than any
other — and eliminating fight fees that boxers have to pay. As in
football and baseball, boxing needs a players' union.

Do you have any comments on his recommendations?

Mr. Richardson. Yes. I believe, Senator McCain, that if we
create this commission along the lines that we all, Senator Roth
and all of us, and Byron and myself want to do, that this commis-
sion itself would contain distinguished people, many of them
boxing people, that would start and take a leadership activist role
to do those things that you mentioned.

I think the first step has to be to create this commission, to
create a chairman of this commission, to give this commission flexi-
bility in these health and safety rules, to basically have a charter
of improving the condition of boxing. You know, the Commissioner
of Baseball has a very broad mandate, to act in

Senator McCain. When they have one! [Laughter.]

Mr. Richardson. When they have one, to act in the best interest
of baseball. That is very broad. Lately it hasn't been observed, as
you know, by the owners.

But I just think the first step is to set up this commission, give
them that health and safety mandate. I believe that it is successful.
I know Senator Roth wants to put in the legislation that there be,
maybe not necessarily a termination date, but to see if this com-
mission works, and I think that we should evaluate it after a
period of time.

But for all of those goals that Bobby Czyz and you outlined, I
think they can be achieved with the creation of this commission. I
naturally would like to see more regulation than I have put in this
legislation. I have been leery of going beyond that because of trying
to keep a political base of support for the bill that, by the way, in
the House got Republican support. We got quite a bit of support
across party lines and we were just not able to move it because

there were no Senator Roths and people like you and Byron Dor-
gans ready to move here.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Roth. Congressman Richardson, I appreciate your taking
the time to come over here and testify before us. We look forward
to working together in an effort to get some kind of legislation en-
acted.

Mr. Richardson. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Roth. Thank you very much.

At this time, we will call our first panel of witnesses, Minority
Staff Counsel Stephen Levin and Leighton Lord, who will be pre-
senting the staff statement.

Will you please stand and raise your right hand?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Levin. I do.

Mr. Lord. I do.

Senator Roth. Please be seated.

Mr. Levin.

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN LEVIN, MINORITY STAFF COUNSEL; AC-
COMPANIED BY W. LEIGHTON LORD III, MINORITY STAFF
COUNSEL, PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE

Mr. Levin. Thank you, Senator Roth and members of the Sub-
committee.

Thirty years ago, the last Senate inquiry into professional boxing
concluded that if the industry was not cleaned up, it should be
abolished. After an extensive year-long investigation, we conclude
that many of the problems existing within the boxing industry
three decades ago still remain.

Can boxing survive? One State boxing regulator testified before
the Subcommittee that if boxing is not better regulated, there
would be no need to abolish it because it would simply die a natu-
ral death. We believe boxing can be saved, but it will require major
alterations of the current regulatory system.

Our investigation found that the regulatory structure that Sena-
tor Kefauver found inadequate when he took a close look at boxing
over 30 years ago remains in place today. In more than 40 States,
boxing is regulated on the State or local level. In several States,
there is no governmental regulation of boxing although boxing is
not illegal in those states.

Our investigation's findings can generally be categorized in
terms of the organization and operation of boxing, health and
safety issues, and media involvement in boxing.

Several significant findings relate to the current organization
and operation of professional boxing. We found that the current
system by which professional boxing is regulated in the United
States is characterized by inconsistent and often inadequate regula-
tions, licensure, and enforcement. This endangers the health and
safety of professional boxers, denies them protection from financial
exploitation, and raises questions regarding the fairness of the
sport, damaging its credibility with the public.

The investigation called into question the role currently played
by international sanctioning bodies. These organizations derive
their power from the fact that they control the most sought-after
prizes in boxing, world titles and rankings. As a result, they are
frequently able to impose their own rules and their own officials on
State regulatory bodies. The State regulators are then faced with
the possibility that if they insist on enforcing their regulations, the
sanctioning bodies will move the fight to a more compliant jurisdic-
tion, together with the badly-needed boxing revenue.

In certain instances, the relationships between State regulators
and the sanctioning bodies border on the incestuous. We found ex-
amples of State regulatory officials having served as officials of the
sanctioning bodies. This involves not only making decisions on
sanctioning body policies but also serving as sanctioning body su-
pervisors for world title fights, which afford the officials first-class
travel paid for by the promoter.

In Nevada, State boxing authorities customarily help the sanc-
tioning bodies collect their sanction fees by deducting them from
the boxers' checks, despite the absence of any apparent legal au-
thority to do so.

In addition, the sanctioning bodies command exorbitant sanction
fees from boxers without providing an adequate accounting of what
they do with this money. For example, former heavyweight cham-
pion Evander Holyfield testified that for his title fight against
Larry Holmes, he alone paid the sanctioning bodies $590,000, and
then on top of that had to pay for his championship belt.

Rankings in many sports are highly subjective, but we found
them to be particularly so in boxing, where alliances between
boxing promoters and sanctioning bodies result in the manipula-
tion of rankings, rather than having the rankings determined by
what happens inside the ring.

We also found that the inability of individual State boxing regu-
lators to enforce their rules beyond their own state's borders has
generally rendered ineffective the rules of States which have adopt-
ed professional boxing regulations. This is particularly apparent
with regard to efforts to regulate business relations among boxers,
managers, and promoters, who use multiple contracts to evade spe-
cific State regulatory requirements.

One such example involves Nevada's rule prohibiting multiple-
option contracts. That rule is evaded by simply filing one contract
in Nevada without options while another real contract for the fight
is signed in another State which includes multiple options.

Boxing is replete with conflict of interest situations at all levels
involving promoters, managers, and boxers. Generally, promoters
are responsible for putting the fight card together. Promoters
assume the financial risk and try to pay boxers as little as possible
in order to maximize their profits. On the other hand, the manager
is responsible for representing the boxer's interest and presumably
will try to get the boxer the best possible deal from the promoter.
Thus, a manager and a promoter should maintain an arm's-length
relationship.

Where these relationships are compromised by conflicts of inter-
est, it is the boxer who is disadvantaged. When State regulations
exist to prohibit such conflicts, they typically are not enforced.

Perhaps the most important area in which the current system of
State regulation of professional boxing has proven ineffective is
protection of the health and safety of boxers. This morning we will
hear from a distinguished panel of boxing physicians who will dis-
cuss this subject in detail.

Generally boxers enjoy few, if any, of the protections and bene-
fits accorded other professional athletes. As has been discussed al-
ready this morning, boxers have no unions which negotiate safety
issues, very limited if any health insurance coverage, and a paucity
of pension plans.

The patchwork system of State regulation of professional boxing
results in wide variations from State to State, both in health and
safety rules themselves and in the enforcement of those rules. As a
result, again, it is the boxer who suffers.

Boxers' health and safety are endangered through gross mis-
matches between boxers of unequal ability, failure to enforce
health and safety related suspensions from one jurisdiction to an-
other, absence of uniform drug testing standards, and gaps in en-
forcement of health and safety standards under the current frag-
mented regulatory system.

Not only do the various suspension standards vary greatly
among the States, but due to limited communication among the
various State boxing authorities, boxers suspended in one State can
often subsequently be found boxing in another state.

Another health and safety issue which the current system of
State regulation does not effectively address is testing for drugs.
Drug testing varies widely among the States and no State tests for
steroids.

States also vary widely in the pre-fight medical exams required
of boxers. New York is perhaps the most thorough, requiring an
EEG, EKG, CAT scan, and dilated eye exam by an ophthalmologist.
Clearly, however, it is expensive to run such a battery of tests on
all boxers.

However, there are other areas where ineffective State regula-
tion is not a matter of lack of finances. For example, although
Nevada is a State which is generally regarded as having strict med-
ical requirements — for example, Nevada was the first State to con-
duct mandatory AIDS testing for boxers — yet a ring physician in
Nevada is not permitted to stop a fight as the ring physician has
the authority to do in some other States. Most medical experts be-
lieve the ring physician should have authority to stop a fight.

Finally, in the boxing business today, television provides the
largest source of revenue for high-profile professional boxing
matches. There are four different types of television which pro-
gram professional boxing: free TV, non-subscription cable, subscrip-
tion cable, and pay-per-view.

Historically, the major television networks, the primary compo-
nents of free TV, have played the largest role in boxing. In recent
years, however, cable TV and pay-per-view have come to play the
more dominant role.

We will hear today from representatives of two cable television
networks who will discuss this area in detail, so let me just provide
some background. Free TV refers primarily to the three major tele-
vision networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Up through the mid-1980s,

the networks were still heavily involved in airing professional
boxing. As recently as 1989, there were approximately 40 to 50
fight shows on free TV, 15 to 18 on NBC and 12 to 20 each on ABC
and CBS. But in more recent years, free TV has substantially aban-
doned the televising of professional boxing. Only ABC has plans to
include boxing on its current programming schedule.

The primary national non-subscription cable networks which
televise boxing are ESPN and USA Network, but there are also re-
gional networks like the Madison Square Garden Network and
Prime, a network of regional sports cable stations. Both ESPN and
USA show approximately 40 boxing shows per year, substantially
more than any other television outlets. However, they have a more
limited audience than free TV and they pay substantially less than
premium cable, so they tend to televise less well-known boxers in
less well-known locations.

The major subscription cable networks are Home Box Office,
HBO, and Showtime. Both of these networks are so-called premium
cable channels, which mean they rely on subscriber revenue rather
than advertising. Each network also has to market itself every
month to ensure subscribers do not cancel their subscriptions.

HBO does an average of eight to ten and Showtime an average of
six to eight boxing shows per year. It is not unusual for HBO to
pay $1 million or more for particular fights. HBO is thought to pay
substantially more than other television networks, making an HBO
appearance a highly-sought goal for most boxers.

The most significant pay-per-view entities involved in profession-
al boxing are TVKO, which, like HBO, is a subsidiary of Time
Warner, and SET, which is owned by Showtime. The pay-per-view
entities have substantially superceded closed circuit as the pre-
ferred technology for showing specific events to home viewers.

Most television networks generally do not get involved in actual-
ly putting a boxing match together. That is left to the promoter.
Time Warner Sports, who we will hear from today, does things dif-
ferently, playing a much more active role in arranging particular
match-ups which they think will be attractive, entering into con-
tracts directly with boxers, requiring exclusive contracts, and en-
tering into multiple-fight contracts.

Sports Illustrated called Time Warner Sports President Seth
Abraham "the heaviest hitter in the world of professional boxing,"
and claimed, "that he controls to a large degree the colorful busi-
ness of boxing." Mr. Abraham demurred from this description, but
while no television network is licensed as a boxing promoter, Time
Warner Sports arguably comes closer to acting as a promoter than
any other network and is generally considered to be the major fi-
nancial influence in big-time professional boxing today.

In summary, the current system of state-based regulation of pro-
fessional boxing is ineffective in protecting the health, safety, or fi-
nancial interests of professional boxers. Any effort to improve pro-
fessional boxing must include reforming the current regulatory
system.

Thank you, and we will be happy to answer any questions you
have.

Senator Roth. Mr. Levin, what would you say is the primary
reason why the current state-based regulatory system is ineffec-
tive?

Mr. Levin. Senator Roth, as has been addressed this morning, I
think the primary reasons are a lack of uniform standards and in-
effective enforcement of those standards which are currently in
place. Those are the two big problems.

Senator Roth. What purpose do State license requirements
serve?

Mr. Levin. The State licensure requirements are implemented to
protect the integrity of the sport by giving the State regulators the
ability to deny entry to those people who would be detrimental to
the sport. Therefore, ineffective enforcement of those standards
really results to the detriment of boxing.

Senator Roth. Let me ask you a question about the sanctioning
bodies, WBC, WBA, IBF, as well as the others. Why are the States
unable to effectively regulate the sanctioning bodies? Why don't
the State regulatory agencies simply tell them they are the boss?

Mr. Levin. The primary reason for that, Senator, is that the
sanctioning bodies will threaten to withdraw their sanction, cancel
the fight, and move it to another State which will be less strict in
its regulation, thereby the State risks losing the boxing revenue
from that fight.

Senator Roth. How important is the role of the sanctioning
bodies? What else do they do besides creating titles and sanctioning
contests for these titles?

Mr. Levin. Their other primary purpose, as has been discussed
this morning, is that of ranking boxers. So the ranking of boxers
and the sanctioning of the title fights are the two primary purposes
that the sanctioning bodies serve.

Senator Roth. Senator McCain.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the last hearing that was held, there was a lot of addressing of
the corruption issue. Have you any additional information since
that hearing that you would like to share for the record?

Mr. Levin. Senator McCain, we have continued to pursue that,
and in fact the subsequent hearings that are planned will focus pri-
marily on that aspect.

Senator McCain. I see. So you feel that, because I was reviewing
the record of the previous hearings and obviously there were some
areas out there that needed to be pursued, at least from my read-
ing of it, and I am glad that we intend to continue on that track. I
think probably that is one of the fundamental issues that we have
to address here.

Do you agree, Mr. Lord?

Mr. Lord. Yes, Senator McCain. I think at our next hearing we
are going to follow up on some of the leads that we uncovered at
the August hearings, try to close in on some of those.

Senator McCain. May I just ask both of you, because you have
been very involved in it, what kind of resistance are you seeing to
Senator Roth's legislation that we might want to address in the
course of these hearings?

Mr. Levin. I think we have heard from a lot of people who say in
general terms that they support the notion of reforming boxing.

The problem occurs when you try to get into the specifics of what
type of reforms you are trying to institute.

Senator McCain. Is there resistance to a National Boxing Com-
mission per se? For example, are you hearing from the States,
saying that you are going to erode their authority and responsibil-
ities?

Mr. Levin. We certainly hear that from some States. On the
other hand, we also hear from other States that they welcome the
type of approach that we are taking which would, and I want to
emphasize this, would not eliminate the State commissions but
would utilize the State commissions as they are currently struc-
tured but just strengthen them.

Senator McCain. Does the issue, and again, it probably is for fur-
ther hearings, but does the issue of one promoter or a very small
number of promoters basically controlling the major fights in
boxing concern you?

Mr. Levin. It is certainly an area of concern any time you have a
large amount of power concentrated in a small number of hands.

Senator McCain. Have you found that to be the case?

Mr. Levin. That is certainly true in boxing today.

Senator McCain. Which then leads to a basic unfairness, because
if you don't have the right promoter/ manager or combination, then
your opportunities are dramatically limited. I think we have cases
of that. I hope in subsequent hearings we can point out some
graphic examples of outstanding boxers who have been unable to
have the opportunity for the kinds of money and titles that other
fighters have gained more easily simply because they were not con-
nected properly.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Senator.

I apologize, Senator Dorgan.

Senator Dorgan. No problem. Thank you very much.

In testimony that we will receive shortly from a physician, he de-
scribes a material that is now used under the ring apron and I
think also in boxing gloves that has, he says, substantially reduced
the incidence of deaths from boxers who hit their head on the ring
apron upon being knocked out. His point is that most knockouts
don't result in deaths. To the extent that there are deaths in
boxing, it is not from the blow to the head, it is from the blow of
the head to the canvas.

This material that is used — and I don't recall the name — is that
widely used? Is it something that most States have adopted for use
in the ring?

Mr. Levin. I think you are referring to Ensolite, and it is used in
a number of States. Again, because of the lack of uniform stand-
ards, it is not used in all States either for the mats or for the
gloves.

Senator Dorgan. So even though there is a demonstrated safety
component, it is not now required for use and is not being used in
all states?

Mr. Levin. That is correct.

Senator Dorgan. I think we will have some testimony on the in-
cidence of death in the sport of boxing later on. The sport of boxing

is not the most dangerous sport in America. Can you just respond
to that?

Mr. Levin. That is correct, and in fact, the panel of physicians
that will follow will go into greater detail, but boxing today ranks
lower even than college football in terms of the number of fatali-
ties.

Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me just finally — and I appre-
ciate the testimony from the staff, it was very useful and interest-
ing — to describe, as I said earlier, that boxing is indeed a sport, and
I think an interesting and a good sport.

We speak of young men. This is not only a young man's sport.
There is a fellow in the audience, and I will embarrass him, I am
sure. To demonstrate this point, I turned on my television set one
Saturday to the National network sports program. There was a
boxing match going on — I believe in the Senior Olympics — and I
saw this older white-haired fellow in the ring boxing. It turned out
to be an employee of the House of Representatives, Jim Baluke-
vich, who is here in the back of the room, and he demonstrated to
me on Saturday that it is not just a young man's sport.

Jim, you might just wave for the Chairman, if you don't mind.

[Applause.]

Senator Dorgan. My point is that if Jim Balukevich a couple of
years ago was boxing on national television, it is a sport — not just a
young man's sport, but a good sport that all of us want to make
better and improve. And that is the purpose of this hearing.

Jim, I hope I didn't embarrass you with that.

I thank the staff for the testimony and look forward to the testi-
mony from the next panel.

Senator Roth. Well, thank you, Senator Dorgan.

I want to welcome Jim here. He gives us all hope for the future.

I do want to introduce at this time the full statement of the staff
on "Corruption in Professional Boxing, Inadequate State Regula-
tion," and will so introduce without objection.

[The prepared statement of the Permanent Subcommittee on In-
vestigations staff follows:]

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING— PART II

INADEQUATE STATE REGULATION

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 1

Introduction and Overview

Thirty years ago, a Senate inquiry into professional boxing concluded that if the
industry was not cleaned up it should be abolished. 2 After an extensive year-long
investigation, we conclude that many of the problems existing within the boxing in-
dustry three decades ago still remain.

Can boxing survive? One State boxing regulator testified before the Subcommittee
that if boxing is not better regulated there would be no need to abolish it because,
"[i]t would simply die a natural death." 3 We believe boxing can be saved, but it will
require major alterations of the current regulatory system.

1 This staff statement was prepared by the Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate.

2 Kefauver, Senator Estes, Congressional Record, v. 109, March 29, 1963, p. S 4786.

3 Testimony of Larry Hazzard, Sr., Commissioner, New Jersey Athletic Control Commission,
U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,

Continued

The minority staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations began the
current investigation of professional boxing with an inquiry into the controversial
February 8, 1992 International Boxing Federation middleweight title fight between
David Tiberi and James Toney. That initial inquiry culminated with a report insert-
ed by Senator William V. Roth, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, into the Congres-
sional Record on April 28, 1992.

The report on the Toney-Tiberi matter found that Dave Tiberi had been a victim
of a system where the regulated have been allowed to rule the regulators. While the
State of New Jersey has a superficially adequate boxing regulatory structure, those
regulations were not enforced in the Toney-Tiberi match. Rather, powerful private
interests, including sanctioning bodies and promoters, exercised undue influence
and control with regard to the Toney-Tiberi match.

The inquiry into the Toney-Tiberi matter also revealed other more broad-based,
systemic problems affecting professional boxing, including: financial exploitation of
boxers; conflicts of interest; inadequate, ineffective and non-uniform enforcement of
health and safety regulations; implicit and explicit corruption; and continued influ-
ence of organized crime. Substantial evidence of these and other problems mandated
a full scale investigation of the professional boxing industry.

The investigation looked at all of the major aspects of the boxing industry. Geo-
graphically, the investigation concentrated on New Jersey and Nevada — the two
States with the majority of title bouts; the traditional boxing center of New York;
California, the State with the most boxing matches; and several other States reput-
ed to have particularly ineffective boxing regulation.

On August 11 and 12, 1992, the Subcommittee held two days of public hearings on
corruption in professional boxing. Those testifying included three professional
boxers, three current and one former State boxing commissioners, a panel of ex-
perts, a major promoter, sanctioning body representatives, as well as other wit-
nesses who testified concerning organized crime involvement and corruption in pro-
fessional boxing. Subsequent to those hearings, additional depositions and inter-
views were taken, including those of knowledgeable television executives. The major
findings of the investigation are summarized in this interim report.

Previous Congressional Boxing Investigations

The Senate last looked into corruption in professional boxing some 30 years ago.
Between 1960 and 1964, the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly,
chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver, conducted an extensive investigation of the
boxing industry. 4 Senator Kefauver concluded that those hearings, "showed beyond
any doubt that professional boxing has had too many connections with the under-
world. Nothing has taken place to indicate that professional boxing ever will, on its
own initiative, free itself from control by racketeers and other undesirables ... if
strong measures are not taken to clean up boxing then it should be abolished." 5
The strong measures referred to by Senator Kefauver included legislation that he
introduced in 1961 and 1963 to provide a Federal role in the regulation of boxing.
These bills, S.1474 (87th Congress) and S.1182 (88th Congress) would have estab-
lished within the Department of Justice a United States Boxing Commission to set
minimum standards for the regulation of boxing.

Senator Clair Engle, a co-sponsor of Senator Kefauver's legislation, based his rea-
sons for supporting Federal intervention in professional boxing largely on the inad-
equacy of State control. Senator Engle stated, "The States cannot handle this sport
properly. I do not want to leave the impression that the States and their boxing
commissions have not tried to clean up boxing. They have made valiant attempts to
do so. But their efforts have usually terminated in a dead end." Engle went on to
state that the problem "is that they are stymied by the interstate aspects of the
business. Subpoena powers of local commissioners stop at State borders. A boxer not
permitted to fight in one city can pull up stakes and go into another city in another
State. . . ." 6

Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, 102d Congress, 2d Session, August 11 and 12,
1992, (hereinafter referred to as "PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11
and 12, 1992") p. 56.

4 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopo-
ly, Hearings on Professional Boxing, 86th Congress, 2d Session, June 14 and 15, and December 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14, 1960, and 87th Congress, 1st Session, May 31, June 1 and 2, 1961.

5 Congressional Record, v. 109, March 25, 1963, p. S 4786.

6 Congressional Record, v. 109, March 28, 1963, p. S 5031.

Senator Kefauver's legislation did not become law due to his untimely death.
However, as a result of the Kefauver hearings, in 1964 Congress did enact P.L. 88-
316 which made bribery in a sporting contest a Federal crime. 7

In noting the past Congressional activity concerning problems in professional
boxing, Senator Roth asked rhetorically at the Subcommittee's August, 1992 hear-
ing, "[w]hat has changed in the last 32 years?" The answer, unfortunately, is very
little. Senator Roth added that, "Boxing has had a very long time to reform itself
voluntarily. It has not done so."

During those hearings, Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Sam Nunn, observed,
"Most States have boxing commissions and specific licensing requirements for
boxers, boxing referees and boxing officials. However, as the Subcommittee staff has
learned, the rules are sometimes bent or broken, with few questions asked."

History of Boxing Regulation

Boxing in the United States during the 19th Century was not regulated by any
governmental entity. The written Marquess of Queensberry rules, which had been
adopted in England in 1860, were usually followed in boxing contests in the United
States after 1880. These rules limited the length of rounds to three minutes (while
allowing an unlimited number of rounds), established a one minute rest period be-
tween rounds, required a ten second waiting period following a knockdown, prohibit-
ed wrestling, and introduced the compulsory wearing of boxing gloves. It should be
noted, however, that these gloves were intended to protect the boxer's hands, and
not his opponent's head, from injury. 8

Employment of the Queensberry rules did not prevent injuries to boxers or unsa-
vory activities that often accompanied boxing. For these reasons, during the late
1890s there were movements in several States to ban the sport. Despite these bans,
the sport continued. Resourceful promoters were known to stage boxing events in
barns, open fields and even on river barges and boats. Boxing events also continued
to be held in those States where boxing had not been outlawed. 9

In 1920, upon passage of the Walker Law, New York State became the first gov-
ernmental entity to regulate boxing in the United States. 10 In 1924, the State of
California, by way of a statewide referendum, legalized boxing. California, like New
York, established a State Athletic Commission to regulate and monitor the sport's
activities. Over time, 42 States and the District of Columbia legalized professional
boxing and established State regulatory commissions, many modeled after the New
York Commission. x 1

Although boxing in the United States was very popular during the period from
1920 to 1950, there were continued signs that the State regulatory structure was in-
adequate. In March 1957 a federal court ruled that boxing's "king pin," promoter

7 78 Stat. 203-204.

In 1977, the House Subcommittee on Communications conducted hearings on television's
sports broadcasting practices. These hearings looked into alleged corrupt practices involving the
joint Don King Productions, Inc. and American Broadcasting Company's production of the "U.S.
Boxing Championship." U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
Subcommittee on Communications, Hearings on Network Sports Practices, 95th Congress, 1st
Session, October 3, and November 2 and 3, 1977.

The House has also held the following hearings on professional boxing reform, including
health and safety issues:

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Labor Standards,
Hearings on the Creation of a Federal Boxing Control Board, 96th Congress, 1st Session, March
28, 29, and April 3, 1979;

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce,
Transportation, and Tourism, Hearings on Boxing Reform, 98th Congress, 1st Session, February
15, and March 18, 1983;

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Labor Standards,
Hearings on H.R. 1951, 98th Congress, 1st Session, May 5, 1983; and

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee on Labor Standards,
Hearings on H.R. 1689, the American Boxing Corporation Act, May 30, 1985, 99th Congress, 1st
Session, May 30, 1985.

8 Arlott, John, editor, The Oxford Companion to World Sports and Games, Oxford University
Press, London, 1975, p. 112.

9 Spears, Betty and Swanson, Richard A., History of Sport and Physical Activity in the United
State's, W.M.C. Brown and Company, Dubuque, Iowa, 2d edition, 1983, p. 154.

10 Welch, Paula D., and Harold A. Lerch, History of American Physical Education and Sport.
Charles C. Thomas, Chicago, 1981, p. 48.

1 ' Galemore, Gary L., Administration of Boxing: History and Regulatory Issues, the Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service, Government Division, September 18, 1985, p. 6, Ex-
hibit 45 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

and matchmaker James P. Norris, had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by ille-
gally cornering the market on fighters and major fight promotions. A federal court
in California also found organized crime figures Frank "Blinky" Palermo and Frank
Carbo, among others, guilty of using extortive methods to attempt to control the
welterweight title. 12 And finally, between 1920 and 1950 at least 158 professional
and amateur boxers died in the ring worldwide. 13

Boxing's Current Regulatory Structure

The regulatory structure that Senator Kefauver found inadequate in the 1960s re-
mains in place today. In more than 40 States, boxing is regulated on the State level.
Municipal governments regulate boxing in several States including North Carolina
and Kansas. There is no governmental regulation of boxing in Colorado, Oklahoma,
South Dakota and Wyoming although boxing is not illegal in those States. 14

Boxing commissions are typically given the authority, via State enabling statutes,
to regulate all aspects of professional boxing including such things as scoring, the
mandatory licensing of persons and entities associated with the sport, as well as lim-
itations on permissible contract terms between boxers and managers.

Promoters and sanctioning bodies can easily take advantage of the many State
and local regulatory bodies because each is effectively competing with one another
for a limited number of boxing shows. Thus the promoter usually enjoys a buyer's
market for boxing venues. If a State refuses to meet the promoter's demands, the
promoter can threaten to take his boxing show, with its often substantial revenues,
to another State. The sanctioning bodies are often able to impose their will on the
State commissions in a similar fashion.

New York State Boxing Commissioner Randy Gordon described the situation with
regard to the sanctioning bodies as follows: ". . . the sanctioning bodies would, in
most cases, appoint the referee and the three judges themselves over the objections
of the State Athletic Commissions, under whose jurisdiction the bout was held. . . .
It is a game of poker. They want to see how many officials they can get by, and if
they can get by with all four, the referee and the judges, they will do it." 15 Gordon
went on to testify that in preparing for a lightweight championship being sanc-
tioned by the WBA, the WBA told Gordon that if he did not go along with their
selection of judges there would be no fight. 16 Gordon testified that in such situa-
tions he was "more or less handcuffed" and likened the situation to being "a home-
owner whose house is being robbed at gunpoint by a roving band of thugs."

Some States, such as Nevada and New Jersey, have more leverage with sanction-
ing bodies because the legal gambling casinos in those States are often willing to
pay large fees, known as "site fees" to promoters for high profile boxing contests,
thus making these States more attractive to promoters as boxing venues. Yet even
Nevada and New Jersey frequently accommodate the demands of promoters and
sanctioning bodies. The New Jersey commission generally allows the IBF sanction-
ing bodies to select two of the three judges while Nevada allows the sanctioning
bodies to recommend three judges for each position.

Other States, such as Ohio, which do not offer high site fee venues, are even more
subject to the pressure of promoters and sanctioning bodies. Ohio has between ten
and twenty professional boxing events each year. Most are not televised and involve
substantially less purse money than the televised fights with which most boxing
fans are familiar. While boxing in Ohio occasionally involves big name promoters
and boxers, it more typically involves local, less well known individuals. Thus,
boxing in States like Ohio is out of the spotlight and generally less well regulated
than even in the inadequately regulated big boxing States.

William Finissi, a former member of the Ohio boxing commission, testified that
the Ohio commission was sometimes even willing to overlook criminal behavior in
order to encourage boxing in Ohio. Finissi testified that a promoter named Tom
Vacca was caught submitting forged medical reports certifying the health of boxers
to the State commission. The Ohio commission elected only to suspend Vacca's li-
cense rather than file suit against him, as recommended by the Ohio Attorney Gen-

12 Subcommittee On Antitrust and Monopoly, Hearings on Professional Boxing, 86th Con-
gress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C., June 14, 1960, p. 1.

13 Goldman, Herbert, editor, 1984 Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia, Ring Publishing
Corp., New York, 1984, p. 960.

14 Galemore, Gary L., Administration of Boxing: History and Regulatory Issues, the Library of
Congress, Congressional Research Service, Government Division, September 18, 1985, p. 39, Ex-
hibit 45 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

15 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, pp. 52 and 59.

16 Ibid., p. 63.

65-875 0-93-2

eral. The suspension, however, did not prevent Vacca from subsequently participat-
ing in a boxing show promoted by Don King in Cleveland in June, 1992, according to
testimony of Finissi.

While boxers themselves are generally required to have some type of medical
check, and promoters may be required to show adequate financial resources, licens-
ing of other boxing participants such as managers, matchmakers and cornermen, is
generally automatic subject to the payment of the required licensing fee. State
boxing regulators generally do not inquire into either the experience of boxing licen-
sure applicants or their backgrounds. 17 The failure to inquire into the backgrounds
of boxing licensure applicants is especially surprising due to the long history of or-
ganized crime's influence in the sport.

Boxing Industry Practices

Sanctioning Bodies

Among the many factors which prevent the current system of State regulation
from effectively governing professional boxing in the U.S., none is more important
than the existence of powerful international sanctioning bodies — the so-called "al-
phabet soup" organizations. The power of these groups stems from their control of
the most sought after prizes in boxing — world titles. The three most powerful sanc-
tioning bodies are the World Boxing Council (WBC — which is based in Mexico and
headed by Jose Sulaiman), the World Boxing Association (WBA — which is located in
Venezuela and headed by Gilberto Mendoza) and the International Boxing Federa-
tion (IBF — which is located in New Jersey and headed by Bob Lee). The WBC and
WBA are organized as non-profit business leagues within the U.S. while the IBF is a
domestic for-profit corporation.

The proliferation of sanctioning bodies began in the 1960s, primarily because of
the economic value of world titles, particularly to television. Previously, the New
York-based National Boxing Association was the lone sanctioning body which deter-
mined rankings and title-holders in what then were only eight weight groups. Cur-
rently, each of the major sanctioning bodies has 17 weight groups, resulting in 51
possible world titles. (This total does not include titles bestowed by several less well
known sanctioning bodies, nor does it include national or regional titles.) While the
proliferation of world titles has clearly led to increased sanctioning fees collected by
sanctioning bodies (and arguably to greater opportunities for public recognition for
more boxers), it has also been widely criticized as leading to widespread confusion
and dilution of the value of championships in professional boxing.

Sanctioning bodies, which authorize world championship contests, rank boxers
who are eligible for such contests, establish rules for the contests, and claim author-
ity to designate contest officials, are self appointed entities. While theoretically sub-
ject to control by State regulatory agencies, as explained earlier, sanctioning bodies
are frequently able to impose their own desires. In exchange for sanctioning a
match, the sanctioning body collects a sanction fee from each of the boxers. Each
sanctioning body has its own rules as to how this fee is determined, but typically it
is a percentage of each boxer's purse. 18

In the case of major world title fights, sanctioning fees can amount to large sums
of money. For example, former heavyweight champion, Evander Holyfield, testified
that for his title fight against Larry Holmes on June 19, 1992, he paid the WBC a
sanction fee of $290,000, nearly twice the $150,000 sanction fee he paid to both the
WBA and the IBF for that fight. (Because Holyfield was the "unified" heavyweight
champion, i.e., he held the titles of each of the three major sanctioning organiza-
tions, he was required to pay a sanction fee to each organization because each of
their respective heavyweight titles was on the line in that fight.) From Holyfield
alone in that fight, the sanctioning bodies collected $590,000. 19 When asked what

17 See testimony of Larry Hazzard, Sr., Commissioner, New Jersey State Athletic Control
Commission, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 77;
and testimony of Marc Ratner, Chief Inspector, Nevada Athletic Commission, during deposition
of Dr. Elias Ghanem, Chairman, Nevada Athletic Commission, p. 24, Exhibit 11.

18 Each sanctioning body also collects a sanction fee from the promoter for each fight, as well
as dues from its members; however, the boxers' sanction fees comprise the majority of these
groups' revenue.

19 Jose Sulaiman, during the Subcommittee's hearings on August 12, 1992, asserted that the
WBC recently changed the way it calculates its sanction fee. Previously, the WBC collected a
flat 3 percent of both the champion's and challenger's purse. However, Sulaiman said that has
been changed so that the WBC gets 3 percent of the first $3 million of a boxer's purse, 2 percent

Continued

the sanctioning bodies do in return for these sanctioning fees (other than rank
boxers), Holyfield testified, "I can't recall them doing anything but showing up and
having judges to judge the fight;" noting that the boxer, if he wins a title, even has
to pay for his own championship belt. 20

As the purse amounts for major world title fights continue to increase, so do the
fees collected by the sanctioning bodies. According to the WBC's recent tax records,
the group's income over the last three years averaged between $1-2 million annual-
ly. Most of this revenue comes from sanction fees paid by boxers.

Sulaiman testified at the Subcommittee's August hearing that the WBC does
much to promote the interests of boxing. He cited contributions the WBC has made
to UCLA for neurological research involving boxing. However, the amount contrib-
uted by the WBC to this program was unclear. Sulaiman claimed the WBC contrib-
uted more than $500,000, while UCLA advised the Subcommittee that it only had
record of $290,000 in contributions. 21 Sulaiman also asserted that the WBC had es-
tablished the Friendly Hand Foundation, a boxers' benevolent group which he as-
serted helps former boxers and their families with medical, living and funeral ex-
penses.

Control of Rules and Officials

The sanctioning bodies attempt to regulate most aspects of the title fights they
sanction. Frequently, they are successful despite the fact that State boxing regula-
tors are charged by law with the responsibility of regulating boxing. Generally, the
sanctioning bodies enforce their own rules and regulations and assign most of the
fight officials.

The selection of officials is obviously an important element of any boxing match.
Except in the case of a clear knock-out, scoring in boxing can be quite subjective. It
is essential that judges be impartial and well-trained in order to ensure fairness.
However, rather than using local officials who are accountable to local boxing regu-
lators for their performance, sanctioning bodies demand the right to assign their
own officials, often from out-of-State or foreign countries, to judge boxing matches.
For example, the two judges selected by the IBF for the Toney-Tiberi match held in
Atlantic City were not from New Jersey, nor were they licensed as boxing judges in
New Jersey. Most State boxing authorities allow the sanctioning bodies this privi-
lege, knowing that if the State regulators object, they run the risk of the fight being
moved to another State willing to accommodate the sanctioning bodies. As previous-
ly indicated, boxing regulators in Nevada, which hosts the most world title fights of
any State, usually choose the judges from lists of three names for each judging posi-
tion which are submitted by the sanctioning body. 22 Other States, including New
York and New Jersey, typically select the referee and one judge and allow the sanc-
tioning body effectively to select the other two judges.

Generally, sanctioning bodies also invoke the use of their own rules, including
their scoring rules, rather than those of the host State. For example, in the Tiberi-
Toney fight which was held in Atlantic City, New Jersey and was an IBF sanctioned
championship fight, the IBF rules on scoring were applied by the IBF selected
judges. Significantly, the IBF rules and rule interpretations discourage the scoring
of even rounds in championship fights, holding that even rounds should be scored
for the champion and against the challenger. But New Jersey's rules require that
an even round is to be scored as such. One of the judges in that fight saw two
rounds as even, but under the IBF's rules, did not score them as such. 23

from $3 million-$10 million, and 1 percent over $10 million. Sulaiman also acknowledged that
the WBC does negotiate agreements with promoters establishing a "ceiling" on the amount of
the sanction fee for a particular match, although there is no provision in the WBC's rules re-
garding ceilings on sanction fees. PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11
and 12, 1992, pp. 125-126.

20 Deposition of Evander Holyfield, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing,
August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 39, Exhibit 55.

21 In response to Senator Roth's request at the Subcommittee's August 12, 1992 hearing, Mr.
Sulaiman submitted a written response to certain questions subsequent to the hearing. Included
in this response was a list of the WBC's contributions to UCLA, totaling $525,000. However,
copies of canceled checks provided as documentation in support of this list of contributions to-
taled only $415,000. One of these checks was dated August 2, 1992, 10 days before the Senate
hearings. PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, Exhibit
69.

22 Exhibit 11 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee, p. 56.

23 New Jersey rules require that "If neither boxer can be judged the winner of a round, 10
points must be scored for each boxer" (N.J.A.C. 12. 46-8. 19(b)(4)). In contrast, the IBF guidelines

Continued

While collusive relationships between promoters and sanctioning bodies is one of
the most frequently alleged areas of misconduct in professional boxing, fight offi-
cials selected for championship fights may also be subject to undue influence. The
promoter usually pays all travel expenses of the officials for a world title fight. 24
Thus, assignments as fight officials to championship fights in places like Tokyo,
Bangkok, or Las Vegas are sought after plums for foreign fight officials as well as
U.S. fight officials. Referees and judges are also typically paid substantially more
for world title fights than for non-title fights. Subcommittee staff has also learned
through interviews that some trips include spouses and that, particularly in foreign
countries, "shopping excursions" at the expense of the promoter are also sometimes
included for fight officials. The major sanctioning bodies do not utilize any type of
strict rotation assignment system for fight officials. Thus, plum assignments can be
used to reward loyalty, rather than be earned on merit.

The potential for bias is enhanced if a particular sanctioning body is seen as
working closely with a particular promoter. In that case, a fight official seeking to
ensure continued plum assignments might be influenced to favor the boxer affili-
ated with that promoter. Such allegations have been made regarding promoter Don
King's relationship with Jose Sulaiman, head of the WBC. Rival promoter, Bob
Arum, in deposition testimony, claimed that "He [Sulaiman] is clearly partners with
King on fighters. This [the WBC] is King's own organization. There is no difference
between Don King and Jose Sulaiman." 25 When former heavyweight champion
Evander Holyfield was asked at deposition why he thought the WBC wanted him to
fight Razor Ruddock rather than Riddick Bowe he testified, "Ruddock is now man-
aged by Don King, and Don King is affiliated with WBC. And so, when it is more
money for Don King, it's more money for the WBC." 26

Arum testified that boxer Julian Jackson was dissatisfied with the purses King
was getting for him as Jackson's promoter, so when Jackson's contract with King
expired, Jackson considered signing with Arum. Sulaiman then threatened to strip
Jackson of his WBC title due to a purported eye problem; however, when Jackson
re-signed with King, the WBC backed off the threat and allowed Jackson to fight,
his eye problem miraculously gone. 27

The relationship between Don King and the WBC is apparently mutually benefi-
cial. Records provided to the Subcommittee by the WBC show that in 1991, Don
King Productions, Inc. paid $535,000 in sanction fees to the WBC. This amounts to
nearly one-half of the WBC's total reported revenues in that year. 28 In his hearing
testimony, Sulaiman denied Arum's charges, stating that he (Sulaiman) is no closer
with King than with any other promoter. Sulaiman denied receiving anything of
value from King or from anyone associated with King, other than trips to WBC title
fights promoted by King, which are normally paid for by the promoter. 29

state that a judge "should very rarely have an even round, if ever. Challenger should be expect-
ed to take title from champion and not win by default" (IBF/USBA Ring Officials Guide, p. 7).
This standard was emphasized in an IBF press release dated October, 1991, which stated that
the scoring of even rounds "irks" IBF president Bob Lee. The release quotes Lee as stating,
"[w]e have endeavored to discourage the scoring of even rounds," and that "[t]his appears to be
a cop-out by officials who are paid good money to perform their duties." According to Lee, when
a round is extremely close the challenger must take the title from the champion — and scoring
officials should bear that in mind when scoring IBF title fights. One of the unlicensed out-of-
State judges, Bill Lerch, told staff that he, in fact, judged two rounds of the fight to be even
rounds, but scored these rounds for Toney because of his understanding that IBF rules did not
permit the scoring of even rounds in championship fights. These rounds were the 2nd and 12th
rounds, according to Lerch. See Report of Results of Investigation — Tiberi v. Toney, Congression-
al Record, April 28, 1992, p. S 5661.

In response to questions from Senator Roth, New Jersey Commissioner Hazzard denied being
aware of the IBF policy of discouraging the scoring of even rounds. PSI Hearings on Corruption
in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, pp. 69-70.

24 Deposition of Robert Arum, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11
and 12, 1992, pp. 47-48, Exhibit 40.

25 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11, and 12, 1992, p. 57.

26 Ibid., p. 38.

27 Arum deposition, pp. 57-58. In his hearing testimony, Sulaiman denied the Arum allega-
tion, stating that the WBC simply required Jackson to undergo eye exams resulting from Jack-
son having had a detached retina which had been surgically repaired. Exhibit 40, PSI Hearings
on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 128.

28 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, Exhibits 59
and 69.

29 Ibid., p. 127.

State boxing regulators run the risk of being unduly influenced by the sanction-
ing bodies because State regulators sometimes serve as members or officials of sanc-
tioning bodies. For example. Dr. Elias Ghanem, current chairman of the Nevada
Athletic Commission, served until recently as a vice president of the WBC. Histori-
cally, Nevada Commissioners have usually held positions with the various sanction-
ing bodies, according to Dr. Ghanem. 30 As a WBC official, Dr. Ghanem not only had
the opportunity to vote on issues presented to the WBC, but also to serve as WBC
supervisor for championship fights held in Nevada and in other locations, including
Tokyo, Japan for the controversial 1990 Mike Tyson-Buster Douglas fight. He testi-
fied that State commissioners from Nevada as well as other States from time to
time serve as supervisors for sanctioning bodies both inside and outside Nevada.
The function of such sanctioning body supervisors is to insure that sanctioning body
rules are followed, according to Dr. Ghanem. 31 Nevada regulators have also routine-
ly assisted sanctioning bodies in collecting their sanctioning fees from boxers by au-
thorizing deductions from boxers' purses, despite the fact that there appears to be
no specific authority under Nevada regulations for such deductions. 32 In fact,
heavyweight champion Riddick Bowe's purse was withheld by the Nevada Athletic
Commission for several days after his November, 1992 victory over Evander Holy-
field because of Bowe's failure to pay sanctioning fees.

Control of Rankings

Ranking boxers is among the sanctioning bodies' most important functions. If a
boxer is not ranked by a sanctioning body, the boxer has no chance of competing for
that sanctioning body's title and is effectively denied the opportunity for the sub-
stantial earnings that can come with a title bout. Rankings are additionally impor-
tant according to testimony of Steve Farhood, editor of Ring Magazine, as a way to
prevent dangerous mismatches and to avoid disillusioning boxing fans. 33 Due to its
inherently subjective nature, the ranking of boxers has the potential for substantial
abuse.

The leverage exerted by the sanctioning bodies through their rankings is illustrat-
ed by the events leading up to the controversial Toney-Tiberi bout. When Tiberi was
first considered as a potential challenger for Toney by promoter Bob Arum, Tiberi
was not ranked by the IBF, the sanctioning body for which Toney held the middle-
weight title. According to the rules of the IBF, as the title-holder, Toney could only
be challenged by boxers ranked in the IBF's middleweight top 10. The IBF refused
to rank Tiberi because Tiberi was the champion of a rival sanctioning body, the
lesser known International Boxing Council (IBC). To make the fight possible under
the IBF rules, Arum requested that the IBF rank Tiberi in its top 10. The IBF
agreed on the condition that Tiberi give up his title with the rival IBC. After Tiberi
agreed to give up his IBC title, the IBF ranked him No. 10 thereby facilitating the
title fight the promoter wanted. 34 As the Tiberi situation demonstrates, cooperation
between a sanctioning body and a promoter can benefit both parties, i.e., the pro-
moter is able to schedule a fight and the sanctioning body is able to collect its sanc-
tion fees from that fight. Steve Farhood quoted veteran promoter Russell Peltz in
his testimony: "Less is based on talent than at any time in boxing history. It's not
whether your fighter has kayoed 20 straight opponents, but how many conventions
you've been to." 3S

One alleged example of manipulation of rankings involved Donovan "Razor" Rud-
dock, promoted by Don King, and Riddick Bowe, the current IBF and WBA heavy-
weight champion. In its February, 1992 rankings, the WBC moved heavyweight
Ruddock into the No. 2 challenger position replacing Riddick Bowe, who had previ-
ously been ranked No. 2. This rating flip-flop occurred despite Ruddock having lost

30 Ghanem deposition, pp. 42-43. Dr. Ghanem indicated that he recently resigned his position
in order to avoid the potential for a future conflict of interest. Exhibit 11 is retained in the files
of the Subcommittee.

31 Ibid., pp. 45-47.

32 "To the best of my knowledge, in paying these fighters in the last 10 years, there's always
been on the check stub a statement saying so much withheld for the sanctioning body, and
that's been the custom." Testimony of Marc Ratner, Chief Inspector of Nevada State Athletic
Commission, Ghanem deposition, pp. 99-100, Exhibit 11 is retained in the files of the Subcom-
mittee. See generally, Ratner testimony, Ghanem deposition, pp. 98-100. See also Nevada Ath-
letic Commission Regulation 467.137, Exhibit 27 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

33 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 78.

34 Report of Results of Investigation — Tiberi v. Toney, Congressional Record, April 28, 1992, p.
S 5659.

35 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 82.

both of his fights in 1991, while Bowe won all seven of his fights during that year. 36
Supposedly, WBC rankings are determined by the WBC ranking committee. A
former member of the WBC ranking committee advised, however, that Jose Sulai-
man retains final decision authority over rankings.

Do the sanctioning bodies' activities justify the large fees that they charge? As
noted previously, Evander Holyfield observed, "I can't recall them [the sanctioning
bodies] doing anything but showing up and having judges to judge the fight." 37 Fur-
ther, sanctioning bodies, despite being private entities, usurp many of the responsi-
bilities of the State and local regulatory authorities which have the legal responsi-
bility of ensuring that professional boxing in that jurisdiction is safe and fair. State
regulators face the difficult choice of yielding to these private sanctioning bodies or
risking having the match moved to another jurisdiction willing to accommodate
these groups.

Promoter Bob Arum summarized one view of the sanctioning bodies as follows:
"These sanctioning things are clearly great rackets. ... it is great action. You col-
lect sanction fees. You don't account for the money. You go all over the world. You
are wined and dined. It is really great business if you can get it." 38

Promoters and Managers

WBA cruiserweight champion Bobby Czyz, in his testimony before the Subcommit-
tee on August 11, 1992, said, "There is more honesty, loyalty and decency among
common criminals and street thieves than among promoters and managers in
boxing today." Czyz went on to state, however, that "... without these managers
and promoters, the fighter has no vehicle to succeed and to get the necessary fights
to earn a living." 39

Generally, promoters are responsible for putting the fight card together and
assume the financial risk as to whether the show succeeds or fails. Thus, a promoter
can be expected to pay the boxers as little as possible in order to maximize the pro-
moter's profit. The manager, on the other hand, is responsible for representing the
boxer's interests and, presumably, will try to get the boxer the best possible deal
from the promoter. Thus, a manager and promoter should maintain an arms-length
relationship. In most States, managers and promoters are both required to be li-
censed and their activities are regulated. For example, many States limit to 33 Vb
percent the manager's share of a boxer's purse. Also, some States (including Califor-
nia and Pennsylvania) require a contract between a manager and a boxer to be wit-
nessed by a member of the State regulatory authority. However, as with other
boxing rules, those governing promoters and managers vary among the States, as
does the enforcement of those rules. Some States, such as Nevada, specifically pro-
hibit promoters from having a financial interest in boxers. 40 Others have no such
prohibitions.

Perhaps the best example of this kind of overt conflict of interest situation in-
volves promoter Don King "negotiating" fight contracts with his stepson and pur-
ported manager, Carl King. One result of this relationship was the Tim Wither-
spoon-James "Bonecrusher" Smith fight in Madison Square Garden on December
12, 1986, in which Don King was the promoter and Carl King was listed as the man-
ager of record for both boxers in the same fight. 41 This fight took place despite New
York regulations prohibiting a single manager from handling both boxers in the
same fight. 42 The promoter-manager relationship between Don King and Carl King

36 Sulaiman, in his hearing testimony, claimed the only reason Ruddock was ranked lower in
the first place was because Ruddock had failed to pay the WBC sanction fees from his two previ-
ous fights in 1991 (March 18 and June 20, both of which were against Tyson). Sulaiman said
when Ruddock paid the overdue sanction fees (with a check in the amount of $150,000, dated
December 28, 1991, which was not received by the WBC until January 20, 1992), Ruddock was
restored to his rightful place as the No. 2 challenger (behind Tyson, the mandatory challenger)
and Bowe was dropped from second to third. PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing,
August 11 and 12, 1992, pp. 128-129.

37 Evander Holyfield deposition, p. 39, Exhibit 55, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional
Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992.

38 Arum deposition, p. 52, Exhibit 40, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing,
August 11 and 12, 1992.

39 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 14.

40 Nevada Administrative Code 467.870.

41 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, Exhibits 25
and 26.

42 New York State Athletic Commission rule 209.3. PSI Hearings on Corruption in Profession-
al Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, Exhibit 27.

also apparently enabled Don King to evade other State laws intended to protect the
financial earnings of boxers. Joseph Maffia, the former Comptroller of Don King
Productions, stated in an affidavit:

". . . Under Nevada law, the maximum percentage a manager can take
from a fighter's purse is 33 Vb percent. Yet in many cases, Don King promot-
ed fights in Nevada in which one or more of the fighters was managed by
Don's son, Carl King of Monarch Boxing, Inc. Oftentimes, in those in-
stances, the fighters were required to pay Carl King a fifty percent manage-
rial share, and false declarations were filed with the Nevada State Athletic
Commission. Monarch Boxing was financed and controlled by Don King,
and the bulk of all money received by Monarch was paid in return to Don
King Productions as a 'loan repayment'." 43

Don King invoked his fifth amendment rights and refused to answer questions
about the Maffia affidavits during a Subcommittee deposition. 44

Another situation resulting from this arrangement was the Witherspoon-Frank
Bruno heavyweight championship fight in London, England, on July 19, 1986, for
which Witherspoon, the champion going in and the victor, received approximately
$90,000, while Bruno, the challenger and loser, pocketed approximately $1.8 million.

Don and Carl King are not the only example of potential conflicts of interest re-
sulting from family ties in boxing. Promoter Dan Duva is the son of manager Lou
Duva, and there are several boxers who have been promoted by Dan Duva's promo-
tional company, Main Events and simultaneously managed by Lou Duva, including
world champions Evander Holyfield, Pernell Whitaker and Meldrick Taylor. In his
testimony before the Subcommittee, Dan Duva asserted that he avoids any such con-
flicts of interest by requiring that his boxers have their own counsel, independent of
Main Events and Lou Duva. Whatever the merits of this practice by the Duvas, the
fact is that most boxers are not represented by independent counsel in their negotia-
tions with managers and promoters, and boxers have told us that some promoters
will not even negotiate if the boxers obtain independent counsel. In some cases, pro-
moters have had boxers sign blank contract forms giving the promoter the opportu-
nity to fill in the blanks at his convenience. 45

Where States have specific rules that prohibit certain kinds of contracts, promot-
ers and managers easily evade the prohibitions by filing one contract which meets
the State's requirements, while obtaining another "real" contract which evades the
requirement. For example, Nevada has a rule against multiple option contracts. 46
Multiple option contracts are commonly sought by boxing promoters in order to tie-
up a boxer in an exclusive arrangement for multiple future fights. In a typical
option contract the promoter of the current champion agrees to give a potential
challenger an opportunity for a match only if the challenger agrees that, should he
win, the challenger will fight exclusively for the promoter for a certain number of
future fights. Thus, the promoter assures that, whatever the outcome of a particular
fight, the promoter will retain control over the champion. Nevada Athletic Commis-
sioner, Dr. Jim Nave, testified that, "It is our position in Nevada that option con-
tracts create a form of slavery." 47 Elias Ghanem, current chairman of the Nevada
Athletic Commission, reiterated this view in his deposition. 48

Despite Nevada's rule prohibiting option contracts, such agreements are signed
for fights that occur in Nevada. For example, on November 29, 1991, James
"Buddy" McGirt fought Simon Brown at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas for the
WBC welterweight championship. An official Nevada boxing contract for this fight
was signed by McGirt, his manager (Al Certo aka Alfred Certissimo) and his promot-
er (Madison Square Garden [MSG] Boxing, represented by Bob Goodman) on Novem-
ber 22, 1991, and filed with the Nevada Athletic Commission as required by Nevada
law (the "Nevada contract"). 49 The Nevada contract called for MSG Boxing to pay

43 Affidavit of Joseph A. Maffia of May 6, 1992. PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional
Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 221, Exhibit 35.

44 Deposition of Don King, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and
12, 1992, p. 208, Exhibit 29.

45 Blank Form Agreement, Don King Productions, Inc., signed by Don King, Carl King and
Tim Witherspoon, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992.
Exhibit 11 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

46 Nevada State Athletic Commission rule 467.112(3).

47 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 78.

48 Ghanem deposition, p. 70, Exhibit 11 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

49 Nevada State Athletic Commission rule 467.117. Deposition exhibit 3 of Exhibit 11 is re-
tained in the files of the Subcommittee.

McGirt $625,000 to fight Simon Brown, and makes no reference to any future op-
tions. However, on November 26, 1991, Goodman (representing MSG Boxing),
McGirt and Certo signed a document titled "Bout Agreement With Options" (the
"New York contract"), which also called for McGirt to fight Simon Brown on No-
vember 29, 1991, at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas. The New York contract called
for MSG Boxing to pay McGirt $700,000 for this fight and, according to paragraph
12, McGirt "irrevocably" granted MSG Boxing "the Option to secure, arrange and
promote [McGirt's] next five (5) professional boxing contests. . . ." 50 Based on the
option provision in paragraph 12, Nevada Commission Chairman Ghanem acknowl-
edged that the New York contract was inconsistent with the rules of the State of
Nevada. 51

Nevada also requires prior written permission from a member of the Athletic
Commission in order for a promoter to provide a boxer with training expenses in
advance of a fight. 52 For the McGirt-Brown fight, paragraph 4 of the New York con-
tract breaks down the $700,000 which the promoter (MSG Boxing) was to pay
McGirt into "$625,000 plus $75,000 for training expenses." MSG Boxing paid Alfred
Certissimo, Inc. (McGirt's manager's company) $75,000 in training expenses in two
installments prior to the fight without notifying the Nevada Commission. 53 In this
case, the training expenses were above the amount of the Nevada contract — further
indication of the fact that the Nevada contract was filed merely as a formality to
comply with Nevada law, but that it was the New York contract that governed the
financial relationships between the boxers, managers and promoters.

Boxing regulations in Nevada and other States are designed to ensure that the
boxer gets all of the money to which he is entitled immediately after the bout by
requiring that the purse be paid by the promoter directly to a commission repre-
sentative, who then transfers the purse check to the boxer and has the boxer sign
for his purse. 54 However, the Nevada commission keeps no actual record of exactly
how much money the boxer receives. The commission's records show only the total
amount of the purse from the contract filed with the Nevada commission less any
Nevada commission license fees due from the boxer. The amount of money a boxer
actually receives from a fight often is significantly less than the contract amount,
with money deducted for advances, training expenses, sanction fees and other ex-
penses. The Nevada commission keeps no record of deductions or of the actual
amount the boxer is paid. The commission relies solely on the promoter's list of de-
ductions from the boxer's purse, and in most cases, the commission does not retain a
record of those deductions. For example, the Nevada Athletic commission form doc-
umenting payments to the boxers for the McGirt-Brown fight shows only the total
purse amounts and does not reflect any of the deductions. 55

Media Influence

Television currently provides the largest source of revenue for high profile profes-
sional boxing matches. There are four different types of television which program
professional boxing: "free TV," non-subscription cable; subscription cable and pay
per view (ppv).

Historically, the major television networks, the primary components of "free TV,"
have played the largest role in boxing. In recent years, cable TV and pay per view
have come to play the more dominant roles.

50 See Ghanem deposition, Deposition exhibit 4. This document is called "the New York con-
tract" because paragraph 16 calls for the Agreement to be governed by New York law. Exhibit
11 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

51 Ghanem deposition, p. 88. Neither Ghanem nor Chief Inspector Ratner had seen the New
York contract prior to this deposition. Ghanem deposition, pp. 86-87. Exhibit 11 is retained in
the files of the Subcommittee.

52 Nevada Revised Statutes 467.130.

53 See Ghanem deposition, Deposition exhibit 4, paragraph 4. Exhibit 11 is retained in the
files of the Subcommittee.

Nevada rules allow a boxer to assign his share of the purse by filing a written request with
the commission at least 5 days prior to the fight. Nevada State Athletic Commission rule
467.137(5). McGirt filed such a request 3 days prior to the Brown fight, asking the Nevada Com-
mission to allow McGirt's purse checks to be made payable to Alfred Certissimo, Inc. This re-
quest was approved by Commission Executive Director, Chuck Minker. See Ghanem deposition,
Deposition exhibit 1. Exhibit 11 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

54 Nevada State Athletic Commission rule 467.142(3).

55 Nevada Athletic Commission boxers' payment sheet for McGirt-Brown fight, November 29,
1991, Exhibit 21.

Free TV

"Free TV" refers primarily to the three major television networks: ABC, CBS and
NBC. Through the mid-1980s, the networks were still heavily involved in airing pro-
fessional boxing. During that time, ABC consistently produced the most boxing and
reportedly paid the highest rights fees to televise fights — up to $300,000 per show —
while NBC and CBS paid $100,000 to $150,000. As recently as 1989, there were ap-
proximately 40-50 fight shows on free TV, with 15-18 on NBC and 12-20 each on
ABC and CBS. But in more recent years, free TV has substantially abandoned the
televising of professional boxing. NBC televised two fights in 1992 and currently has
no boxing on its programming schedule. ABC televised three professional boxing
shows in 1991 and again in 1992 and will probably carry a similar number of shows
in 1993. CBS last broadcast a professional boxing match in 1991 and has no present
plans to televise boxing. Further, the rights fees which the networks are willing to
pay for boxing have fallen dramatically. 56

Several factors have contributed to the decline of professional boxing on free TV.
With the advent of cable television, the sports marketplace has increased and more
"product," i.e., more sporting events are being shown on television. This gives adver-
tisers a wide variety of different sports to choose from in placing their television
sports spots, thus "fractionalizing" the market. As a result, although boxing's rat-
ings have been stable and can in fact be better than some other sports' more fre-
quently shown on free television, the combination of boxing's demographics (heavily
male viewers) and the sport's image have caused many advertisers to favor other
sports. As a result, the networks do not believe they can afford to pay rights fees in
the amount being paid by subscription cable and ppv, both of which are financed by
subscriber revenue and do not depend on advertising.

In addition, the losses which the networks have suffered on other major sports
contracts have left no room for losses on any other sports, so that if a sporting event
cannot pay for itself, the networks are reluctant to air it.

Free TV does offer boxers the widest possible television viewing audience. This
kind of maximum exposure allows a boxer to establish his reputation and make
himself more marketable for the bigger paydays available on subscription cable and
ppv. However, with free TV moving out of televising boxing, such opportunities are
becoming much more limited.

Non-subscription Cable Networks

The primary national non-subscription cable networks which televise boxing are
ESPN and USA Network. There are also regional networks like Madison Square
Garden (MSG) Network and Prime (a network of regional sports cable stations).
Both ESPN and USA show approximately 40 boxing shows per year, substantially
more than any other television outlets. However they have a more limited audience
than free television and they pay substantially less than premium cable, so they
tend to televise less well known boxers in less well known locations. ESPN has an
exclusive arrangement with promoter Bob Arum's company, Top Rank, while USA
contracts with a variety of promoters. ESPN and USA obtain revenue from both
subscriber fees and advertising. ESPN has approximately 61.5 million subscribers,
while USA Network has approximately 60 million subscribers.

Subscription Cable Networks

The major subscription cable networks are Home Box Office (HBO) and Showtime.
Both of these networks are so-called "premium cable channels," which means they
rely on subscriber revenue, rather than advertising. Each network also has to
market itself every month to ensure subscribers do not cancel their subscriptions.

HBO, in particular, has upped the ante significantly for boxing shows, of which it
does an average of 8-10 per year. Showtime does an average of 6-8 boxing shows per
year. It is not unusual for HBO to pay $1 million or more for particular fights, and
recently HBO announced a multi-fight contract with heavyweight champion Riddick
Bowe with a potential value of $100 million, putting HBO in a league of its own.

Pay-Per-View (PPV)

The most significant PPV entities involved in professional boxing are TVKO,
which like HBO, is a subsidiary of Time Warner, and SET, which is owned by Show-

56 Arum deposition, p. 13. Exhibit 40, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing,
August 11 and 12, 1992.

time. The PPV entities have substantially superceded closed circuit as the preferred
technology for showing specific events to home viewers. PPV technology allows cus-
tomers with cable receivers that have "addressable boxes" to order and receive spe-
cific televised events. Each event is paid for separately — hence the term Pay Per
View. Currently, approximately 20 million homes can access PPV.

PPV is currently at the top of the boxing television hierarchy. By charging up to
$40 for a fight, ppv is able to provide the largest purses and thereby attract the top
contests. Generally, the local cable operators keep 50 percent of the PPV charge,
with an additional small percentage also going to the PPV distributors, Request Tel-
evision and Viewer's Choice, who are the middlemen in PPV telecasts. That leaves
less than 50 percent for the promoter. TVKO plans 6-7 boxing shows in 1993, a de-
crease from its previous monthly schedule, while SET does an average of 2-3 boxing
shows per year.

On several occasions, television networks of all types have entered into long-term
relationships with boxing promoters in order to ensure a steady supply of boxing
product. For example, ESPN is in its 14th year of contracts with Bob Arum's Top
Rank. Similarly, HBO had a series of agreements with Don King for a period of 14
years. King and HBO had a falling out, resulting in King forming his own PPV
company, King Vision, which now appears to work primarily with SET.

Most television networks contract with boxing promoters to put fights together.
While the network approves the fight card, network representatives generally do
not get involved in actually putting the show together — that is left to the promoter.
The television network's contract is generally with the promoter who in turn con-
tracts with the managers and boxers. Time Warner Sports (HBO and TVKO) does
things differently. Seth Abraham explained in a deposition that HBO and TVKO
take an active role in arranging particular match-ups which they think will be at-
tractive. "[W]e will go to a promoter and we will suggest matches. We have particu-
lar men in mind that we want to see matched up and we will go to them," Abraham
said. 57

Time Warner Sports sometimes negotiates and enters into contractual arrange-
ments directly with boxers. For example, Time Warner Sports currently has a con-
tract with George Foreman and has had contracts with boxers Marvin Hagler and
Sugar Ray Leonard. 58 Other television networks explained that they generally con-
tract with the promoter, who then deals with the boxers.

Time Warner Sports also enters into multiple fight or so-called option contracts
with boxers, whereas Showtime, for example, generally contracts on a single fight
basis. In February, 1993, Time Warner Sports and heavyweight champion Riddick
Bowe held a joint press conference celebrating Time Warner Sports signing Bowe to
a multiple fight contract. At the press conference, Bowe held up a facsimile check
for $100 million, indicating the potential value of the contract. Time Warner Sports
has also prepared television commercials linking Bowe and HBO, and has bought
time during major sporting events to show these ads. 59

Also, Time Warner Sports requires their boxers sign exclusive contracts; that is,
the terms of the contract specifically prohibit that boxer from fighting on any other
network. 60 Other networks, including Showtime, said they do not require exclusive
contracts.

No television network is licensed as a boxing promoter. Time Warner Sports, how-
ever, arguably comes closer than any other network to acting as a promoter. 61 In
any event, HBO (including TVKO) is widely believed to be the major financial influ-
ence in big time professional boxing today. Sports Illustrated called Abraham "the

57 Deposition of Seth G. Abraham, February 2, 1993, p. 19. Exhibit 50 is retained in the files of
the Subcommittee.

58 Ibid., p. 79.

59 Ibid., pp. 17-18.

60 Ibid., p. 28.

61 Abraham, in his deposition, said attorneys for Time Warner Sports have examined this
question and found that Time Warner Sports is not acting as a promoter and therefore is not
required to be licensed as such. Abraham deposition, p. 51, Exhibit 50. Interestingly, the ques-
tion of a television entity acting as a boxing promoter was raised by Senator Kefauver during
his hearings in 1961. Senator Kefauver said, "testimony before the Subcommittee disclosed that
a new type of boxing promoter — the closed-circuit TV magnate — has arisen in recent years. Cor-
porations engaged in closed-circuit TV wield immense power over the conduct of major boxing
contests; yet, they are neither licensed, nor regulated by the Federal Government — as are the
regular TV networks." Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Mo-
nopoly, Hearings on Professional Boxing, 87th Congress, 1st Session, May 31, June 1 and 2, 1961,
p. 1253.

heaviest hitter in the world of professional boxing" and claimed "that he controls,
to a large degree, the colorful business of boxing. . . ." 62

Health and Safety

Perhaps the most important area in which the current system of State regulation
of professional boxing has proven ineffective is protection of the health and safety of
boxers. Boxers generally enjoy few, if any, of the protections and benefits accorded
other professional athletes. Boxers have no unions which negotiate safety issues,
very limited, if any, health insurance coverage, and a paucity of pension plans. 63
The patchwork system of State regulation of professional boxing results in wide
variations from State to State both in health and safety rules themselves and in the
enforcement of those rules. As a result, it is the boxers who suffer.

Boxers' health and safety are endangered through gross mismatches between
boxers of unequal ability, failure to enforce health and safety related suspension
from one jurisdiction to another, absence of uniform drug testing standards, and
gaps in enforcement of health and safety standards under the current fragmented
regulatory system.

Mismatches

One example of a significant threat to a boxer's health and safety is the problem
of gross mismatches, that is, the sanctioning of boxing contests between opponents
of such disparate ability that the outcome is not only preordained, the safety of the
lesser "opponent" is endangered. Such mismatches are sometimes sought to pad a
boxer's record, i.e., to increase his number of wins by having him fight inferior op-
ponents, thus making him appear, on his record to be a superior boxer and a more
attractive draw, particularly for television. But as boxer Dave Tiberi pointed out in
his testimony, mismatches can jeopardize a boxer's health and safety. 64

Boxing records are replete with examples of obvious mismatches. Several wit-
nesses at the hearings cited particularly egregious cases. New York Boxing Commis-
sioner Randy Gordon testified as follows:

In 1979, there was a WBC bantamweight championship fight in Los An-
geles, California, featuring the sensational Carlos Zarate, of Mexico City.
He was also a favorite of the WBC hierarchy, and he took on the No. 1
challenger, a man from Africa. Nobody knew anything about him. Nobody
could watch him train. They had closed-door workouts.

When the fight started, Zarate started to go after his opponent and then
saw this unorthodox style that he had never seen before, and he figured he
was being suckered in, that the guy was trying to make him think that he
could not fight, to land some big bomb. So the champion kept away in
rounds one and two and just studied his opponent. But by the third round,
he realized this man cannot fight. He moved in and he knocked his oppo-
nent out.

It turned out that this supposed No. 1 challenger had never had a fight
before. How did the sanctioning body get him to No. 1? That is a question I
cannot answer. I can only ask it. 65

62 Hoffer, Richard, "Fists Full of Dollars," Sports Illustrated, January 15, 1990, p. 94, Exhibit
46. Mr. Abraham demurred from this description. He testified in his deposition that boxing
". . . is a fraternity of maybe 12 to 15 men, and at various times the ebb and flow of the power,
the impact of these 12 to 15 men vary. But I will tell you this, it is never one." Abraham deposi-
tion, p. 14, Exhibit 50.

63 In a staff interview, Richard DeCuir, the executive officer of the California State Athletic
Commission, explained that California is one of the few States which has instituted a pension
plan for boxers. However, the pension fund has not paid out any benefits yet. The first pay-out
is expected in the year 2008. A boxer who has contributed to the pension plan will receive pay-
ments when he turns 65. However, DeCuir pointed out that there are problems with the pension
plan. For example, since payments will be based on contributions, the boxers who will need the
pension most are likely to not qualify for a pension sufficient to do them much good. DeCuir
also noted that it is very difficult to keep track of boxers. For example, he recently sent out a
letter to the boxers who had contributed to the pension plan and 40 percent of the letters were
returned as undeliverable. DeCuir said the California commission is considering using the
money for other purposes.

64 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 21.

65 Ibid., p. 53.

Former Ohio Boxing Commissioner William Finissi, testified that on December 12,
1991, the Ohio Boxing Commission approved a boxing match between Alex Zolkin
and James Holley. At the time, Zolkin was undefeated while Holley had been
knocked out in his last 24 fights, with 20 of those knockouts occurring in either the
first or second round. While mismatches are common in Ohio, according to Finissi,
the Zolkin-Holley bout was an unusually extreme example. 66

Gross mismatches are not only dangerous for boxers, they lead to cynicism among
boxing fans and the general public. The ultimate goal of every contest authorized by
a State boxing authority should be a genuinely competitive match. But State boxing
officials testified that State regulators frequently lack the resources to compile or
obtain the data necessary to determine whether boxers are evenly matched. Some
officials suggested a national registry of boxers as a possible solution to this prob-
lem. 67 One witness suggested going back to the old system of ranking boxers in cat-
egories according to their skill level, e.g., A, B, C and D, and generally permitting a
boxer only to fight another boxer in the same category, thus limiting potential mis-
matches. 68

Recordkeeping and Suspensions

Another problem accentuated by the State-by-State variation in boxing rules is
abuse of adequate recordkeeping generally and, specifically, the problem of enforc-
ing suspensions of boxers. Generally, the type and quality of records maintained
varies widely among the States. Some States verify submissions and keep detailed,
computerized records which are open to the public and to other State boxing au-
thorities. Other States accept at face value information which is submitted and keep
very limited records on dusty three-by-five cards to which very few people have
access. As previously discussed, former Ohio boxing commissioner, William J. Fin-
issi, testified about a situation involving a promoter who submitted forged medical
records to the State commission. The Ohio Commission elected only to suspend the
promoter's license rather than file suit against him. The suspension did not prevent
the promoter from participating in a subsequent boxing event. 69 But the most sur-
prising thing may be that the forgery was ever detected at all.

Suspension standards vary greatly among the States, and due to limited commu-
nication among the various State boxing authorities, boxers suspended in one State
can often subsequently be found boxing in another State.

Most States have knockout rules designed to protect the health and safety of
boxers who have been knocked out by suspending them for a period of time, but the
specific time of the suspension varies greatly from State to State. These suspensions
can be "no contact" suspensions which prohibit a boxer from even sparring in a
gym, or may be limited only to suspension from fighting a professional bout. Most
States also are empowered to suspend a boxer permanently because of "diminished
capacity" or other similar language, indicating that his boxing skills have waned to
a point where he is no longer able to defend himself sufficiently to step into the ring
without serious risk of injury.

One example cited by Randy Gordon, chairman of the New York Athletic Com-
mission, in his hearing testimony on August 11, 1992, involved a 1982 boxing match
held on board the U.S.S. Yorktown, which was anchored in the harbor of Charles-
ton, South Carolina, between Billy Collins and Raheem Tayib. The fight was tele-
vised by ESPN and Gordon was then the boxing analyst broadcasting the fight.
Gordon recognized "Tayib" as a boxer named Eddie Flanning who Gordon had just
seen six nights earlier get knocked out in a fight in New York. As a result of that
knockout, Flanning was suspended for 45 days under New York's rules. Less than
one week later Flanning was fighting in South Carolina under a different name.
Gordon advised the local boxing commission and the promoter (Top Rank) of this
fact but the match went on as scheduled. Tayib/Flanning was knocked out again by
Collins and, incredibly, Tayib/Flanning fought a third time several days later. 70

Another example provided by Gordon in his hearing testimony is that of Ricky
Stackhouse, a middleweight boxer who started his career in 1984. By 1989, Stack-
house's boxing skills had deteriorated to the point where the New York Boxing

66 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, pp. 57-58.

67 Testimony of Larry Hazzard, Sr., PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing,
August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 55.

68 Testimony of anonymous witness, "Bobby," PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional
Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, p. 117.

69 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, pp. 57-58.

70 Ibid., p. 62.

Commission's doctors determined he should not be allowed to box again in New
York and Stackhouse was suspended for life. Stackhouse then fought in Florida and
was knocked out with one punch in the first round. Following that fight, the Florida
Boxing Commission also suspended Stackhouse for life. Yet, even after having been
suspended for life in two States, Stackhouse was able to qualify to fight in Michigan
on May 2b\ 1992. He fought not just any opponent, but the IBF world middleweight
champion, James Toney. It was not surprising that Stackhouse took a dreadful beat-
ing before being knocked out in the third round. But that is not the end of the
Ricky Stackhouse story. Seated next to Gordon at the August 11, 1992, hearing was
Larry Hazzard, Sr., chairman of the New Jersey Athletic Control Board, who heard
Gordon discuss Stackhouse's tale. In spite of that, the New Jersey Athletic Commis-
sion permitted Stackhouse to fight in New Jersey one month later on September 11,
1992, against Charles Brewer.

In yet another similar case, Gordon explained to staff that former junior welter-
weight champion Aaron Pryor's eyesight had so deteriorated at the end of his career
that he was legally blind in one eye and as a result none of the major boxing States
would license him to box. Pryor, however, was able to schedule a fight in Wisconsin.
Knowing Pryor's medical condition, Gordon sent a fax directly to Wisconsin Gover-
nor Tommy Thompson, who overruled the State boxing authority and canceled
Pryor's fight. Subsequently, however, Pryor went to court and won the right to fight
when the court determined that to not allow Pryor to fight would be discriminating
against a handicapped person.

Another boxer, Troy Jackson, was suspended from boxing in several States. Yet,
he was able to continue to box in other States, so that he ended up fighting more
bouts after his suspensions than he had before his suspensions. 71

Drug and Steroid Use in Boxing

Another health and safety issue which the current system of State regulation does
not effectively address is testing for drugs. Drug testing varies widely among the
States, and no State tests for steroids. Medical experts cite the dangers which drugs
and steroids pose to boxers. Marijuana, for example, can affect a boxer's hand-eye
coordination for five to seven days after smoking it. Cocaine, a stimulant, can be
particularly dangerous in an aerobic sport like boxing because it can increase the
heart rate, causing the boxer to feel stronger and hyped-up, although he actually
will lose stamina earlier, and also faces an increased risk of excessive bleeding.

The conventional wisdom among many in boxing has been that anabolic steroids
would not enhance, and could, in fact, hinder the performance of a boxer. This
belief appears to come from the thought that anabolic steroids would merely make a
boxer bigger and slower, and cause him to become "muscle-bound." But medical evi-
dence exists to the contrary. In fact, steroids make stronger and quicker muscles,
which would be to a boxer's advantage. In addition, increasing muscle mass, while
important, is not always the main reason athletes take steroids. Steroids enable ath-
letes to train more intensely for longer periods of time without suffering the loss of
muscle mass which such training regimes would normally produce. As such, steroids
can help prevent the effects of so-called "over-training." This would be an obvious
advantage for a boxer training for an upcoming fight.

In addition to the physical characteristics which are enhanced by steroid use,
these substances also create certain psychological effects. According to medical ex-
perts, steroids create a "macho" high and very aggressive feeling sometimes called
"anabolic madness." In addition to the danger posed to the steroid user, the aggres-
sive tendencies which steroids trigger create a situation which, in boxing, is unfair
and potentially dangerous to the user's opponent.

There are numerous harmful side effects of steroid use. These include liver func-
tion abnormalities, benign and malignant liver tumors, testicular atrophy, behavior-
al changes and psychiatric disorders. 72

Testing is a deterrent for both drugs and steroids, but drug testing requirements
vary widely among States, with many States requiring no drug testing at all. No
States currently test boxers for steroid use.

States also vary widely in the pre-fight medical exams required of boxers. New
York is the most thorough, requiring an EEG, EKG, CT scan and dilated eye exam
by an ophthalmologist. Clearly, it is expensive to run such a battery of tests on all
boxers. However, there are other areas where ineffective State regulation is not a

71 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, Exhibit 72.

72 Medical Aspects of Boxing, Barry D. Jordan, M.D., editor, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1993,
p. 127.

matter of a lack of finances. For example, Nevada is a State which is generally re-
garded as having strict medical requirements, e.g., Nevada was the first State to
conduct mandatory AIDS testing of boxers. However, a ring physician in Nevada is
not permitted to stop a fight as the ring physician does in some other States; that
decision in Nevada rests with the referee.

Conclusions

1. The current system by which professional boxing is regulated in the United
States results in inconsistent and often inadequate regulations, licensure and en-
forcement, to the detriment of the health and safety of professional boxers and the
fairness of the sport.

2. The international sanctioning bodies effectively operate beyond the individual
jurisdiction of State regulatory authorities. Because they control the most sought
after prizes in boxing, i.e., world titles and rankings, they are frequently able to
impose their own rules and officials on State regulatory bodies, which, by failing to
comply with these demands, risk the possibility that the sanctioning body will move
the fight to another, more compliant jurisdiction. Also, the sanctioning bodies are
able to command exorbitant sanction fees from boxers without providing an ade-
quate accounting of what they do with this money.

3. Alliances between key promoters and sanctioning bodies are used to manipu-
late rankings — thereby enabling promoters to control a boxer's career, rather than
having the rankings determined primarily by the results of events inside the ring.

4. While many States have adopted professional boxing regulations, those regula-
tions are generally ineffective because of a lack of reach of individual States' en-
forcement efforts beyond their own borders. For example, efforts by individual State
regulatory agencies to regulate business relations among boxers, managers and pro-
moters are ineffective because multiple contracts are frequently employed to evade
specific State regulatory requirements.

5. Boxing is replete with conflict of interest situations involving promoters, man-
agers and boxers, in which the boxers are frequently disadvantaged.

6. Mismatches between boxers of vastly different skill levels frequently occur, cre-
ating potentially grave danger for the less skilled boxer. State regulatory efforts to
limit such mismatches have been ineffective.

7. The system of State regulation results in wide variations in the suspension cri-
teria used among the States. As a result, a boxer can be suspended in one State and
fight in another State. The failure of States to communicate clearly and consistently
among one another also allows boxers to evade suspension rules. The lack of a cen-
tral registry of boxers' records and medical data makes it difficult for States to ef-
fectively track such information.

8. Variation in scoring rules mean that the same fight can be scored differently in
different States, a fact which is unfair to both boxers and fans.

In summary, the current system of State-based regulation of professional boxing
is ineffective in protecting the health, safety and pocketbooks of professional boxers.

Senator Roth. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your being
here today.

Our next panel of witnesses are all physicians who have a great
deal of background and experience with the medical aspects of
boxing. These doctors include Dr. Jack Battalia, who is a general
surgeon but also serves as Chairman of the Oregon Boxing Com-
mission.

Dr. Barry Jordan is Assistant Professor of Neurology and Public
Health at the Cornell Medical School, Medical Director of the New
York State Athletic Commission, and Team Physician for the
U.S.A. Amateur Boxing Federation. Dr. Jordan is also the author
of the textbook "Medical Aspects of Boxing."

Finally, we are very pleased to have Dr. Timothy Ward, who is
Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of
Pittsburgh and Chairman of the Medical Advisory Board of the
Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission.

Gentlemen, if you would please come forward, and as you heard,
all witnesses must swear in respect to their testimony, so will you
please continue rising and raise your right hand?

Do you swear the testimony you give before the Subcommittee
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?

Dr. Jordan. I do.

Dr. Battalia. I do.

Dr. Ward. I do.

Senator Roth. Thank you, gentlemen. Please be seated.

We are delighted to have each and every one of you here and ap-
preciate your taking the time to help on what we consider to be a
very important problem.

Dr. Jordan, we would call upon you to first give your testimony. I
would say, gentlemen, that if you abbreviate your testimony your
full statement will be included as if read.

Dr. Jordan, please.

TESTIMONY OF DR. BARRY JORDAN, 1 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
NEUROLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH, CORNELL UNIVERSITY
MEDICAL COLLEGE; MEDICAL DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE
ATHLETIC COMMISSION; AND TEAM PHYSICIAN, U.S.A. AMA-
TEUR BOXING FEDERATION

Dr. Jordan. Ladies, gentlemen, Senators, boxing is an inherently
dangerous sport that can be made safer via improved medical su-
pervision and safety legislation. The mainstay of these improve-
ments require medical research to understand, help prevent, and
minimize brain, eye, and other medical injuries associated with
boxing.

The major concern confronting boxing today is chronic brain
injury. Chronic brain injury represents the cumulative long-term
effects and consequences of professional boxing and is probably the
condition that afflicts Muhammad Ali.

Approximately 20 percent of retired professional boxers experi-
ence chronic brain injury. Boxers exhibiting chronic brain injury
may experience slurred speech, memory loss, personality changes,
difficulty with walking, and/or Parkinson's disease.

A long exposure to boxing or a long duration of career may in-
crease the risk of chronic brain injury. Accordingly, limiting the
duration of a boxer's career may reduce the risk of chronic brain
injury. In addition, poor performance may be a risk factor for
chronic brain injury. Therefore, it appears that boxers with exces-
sive losses would have an increased risk of chronic brain injury.
Currently in New York State, professional boxers are medically
suspended for six consecutive losses or three consecutive losses sec-
ondary to a technical knockout or knockout.

1 The prepared statement of Dr. Jordan appears on page 149.

There are several pathological similarities between the brains of
patients with Alzheimer's disease and boxers with chronic brain
injury. The similarities may reflect similar pathophysiological
mechanisms. Furthermore, head trauma has been postulated to be
a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.

Although chronic brain injury associated with boxing has been
recognized since 1928, minimal medical research has been conduct-
ed to further our understanding of this syndrome. There are sever-
al factors that have limited medical research in boxing. First, there
has been a lack of government monies made available for research,
because boxing has a low funding priority. Furthermore, a large
representative population of boxers that could effectively be stud-
ied is lacking. The establishment of a national registry of all pro-
fessional boxers will provide a sample population of boxers that
could be evaluated.

Unfortunately, a substantial proportion of the medical communi-
ty has abandoned all efforts and concerns to improve the safety
standards in boxing. Several medical societies, including the AMA,
have proposed the abolition of the sport. However, banning the
sport will not make it safer because it will continue underground
as bootleg boxing. This bootleg boxing will occur in basements,
bars, and back rooms and would totally lack medical supervision.
This would result in a substantially higher injury rate and death
rate.

Accordingly, I feel it is necessary to improve the sport of boxing
and make it safer by advancing medical research.

Thank you.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Dr. Jordan.

Dr. Battalia.

TESTIMONY OF DR. JACK E. BATTALIA, 1 CHAIRMAN, OREGON
BOXING COMMISSION, AND CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL
BOXING FEDERATION MEDICAL COMMISSION

Dr. Battalia. As stated, I am a semi-retired surgeon. My avoca-
tion for 35 years has been boxing safety. I was a member of the
Portland, Oregon Boxing and Wrestling Commission for 29 V2 years,
actively participating in amateur boxing for 15 years as well. Five-
and-one-half years ago, Oregon's law was changed and I became a
member of the Oregon Boxing and Wrestling Commission, serving
as chairman for the past 2 years.

As an aside, I might say that the Speaker of the House in Oregon
is trying to deregulate boxing and trying to eliminate the commis-
sion, so we have a fight on our hand for standardization there, be-
lieve me.

For the past 8 years, I have also been the chairman of the IBF/
USBA Medical Committee.

When first appointed to the Portland Commission, I knew noth-
ing about boxing but my orders from the new mayor were, don't let
them get hurt. That has been my priority for 35 years. We still had
one detached retina and two subdural hematomas, fortunately with
good recoveries.

1 The prepared statement of Dr. Battalia appears on page 150.

Boxing is not the dangerous sport that some would like to be-
lieve. It has dropped from No. 5 to No. 9 in the past few years. This
has come about because of the sweat and tears of a lot of dedicated
boxing people.

The rate of deaths in horse racing is the highest, followed by sky
diving, hang gliding, and auto racing. Football has many times the
rate of deaths per thousand engaged in the sport than boxing, but
if any sports writer or politician even suggested altering the sport,
the revolution would make the Civil War look like a garden party.

One of the most important rule changes in boxing which has re-
duced head injuries has been the placement of Ensolite safety mats
under the ring canvas. An egg dropped from four feet will not
break on an Ensolite mat. Oregon was one of the first States to
mandate the mat for all boxing, pro and amateur, and we got the
IBF to follow suit. The leading cause of boxing deaths has been the
head striking the floor and not the gloved fist.

As far as gloves are concerned, there have been some dramatic
changes. First, the use of Ensolite instead of horsehair padding.
Second, the tie-down thumb has reduced eye injuries and essential-
ly prevented Bennett's fractures of the thumb.

Now this is a good time to correct some widespread misconcep-
tions.

One, the safest fight as far as head injuries are concerned is no
glove, but the contestants would be cut to ribbons and hand frac-
tures would be epidemic.

Two, a heavier glove does not reduce head injuries, it increases
them. For every two ounces of increased glove weight, it is the
equivalent of putting a roll of pennies in the boxer's hand. The in-
creased padding reduces cuts but the increased weight increases
the force hitting the head and thus slapping the brain against the
skull. I can demonstrate that right here. With just a hit here, you
see the brain bouncing around.

In my estimation, the time has come to eliminate boxing glove
weight standards. I have asked Dr. Barry Jordan if they can re-
search the optimum density and thickness of the padding to arrive
at the safest glove. Then the gloves would all have the same thick-
ness and the only difference would be the width of the glove, de-
pending on the size of the hand in the various weight classes.

Three, finally the misconception of headgear. Every do-gooder
asks, why don't we make all boxers wear headgear like the ama-
teurs? The headgear is a dangerous effort to make some people
look like they know what they are doing. Again, the padding re-
duces the cuts and cauliflower ears. However, the headgear adds
weight to the head and thus, when struck, the inertia slows the
movement of the head and thus the movable brain inside the skull
slaps around more and you get contrecoup injuries.

Contrecoup, gentlemen, is a fact that when the head is hit on one
side, there can first be an injury at the site of the blow, but at the
same time, the brain is moving in its fluid envelope and you will
get an injury, sometimes even worse than the contact injury, at the
opposite side of the brain. If you put more weight on the head, such
as a headgear, then the inertia keeps the head from moving as rap-
idly as it should. Therefore, a blow on that head will end up with

the skull staying slower but the brain moving faster and you will
get more injury on the opposite side.

I deplore the use of headgear. If somebody can make one with no
weight to it, that would be wonderful.

Fourth, the four-strand ring has reduced injuries from boxers
falling through the ropes but the lowest rope needs to be moved
back about six inches so a falling boxer doesn't catch his neck on
the bottom strand. I am positive that the Korean boxer who died in
California a few years ago was killed by the rabbit punch whiplash
when his neck struck the rope rather than the KO punch. This
injury was dramatic when reviewed on tape.

The standards for physical exams and eye exams are out there,
but only a few States in the IBF and ABC are following them. The
IBF Medical Committee and its available consultants are always
available to evaluate a boxer and/or his suspension.

In conclusion, I wish to point out the inconsistency of the Federal
Government and boxing safety. We physicians in boxing are all
aware that acute and chronic boxing injuries are more apt to occur
after the age of 35 or after a certain number of fights because of
slowed reflexes which can't be measured by present technology.
The feds say, make it safer, but when we try to stop all boxing at
the age of 35 they scream, age discrimination. For every George
Foreman, who is a physical exception, there are a thousand boxers
out there who are getting hurt by being allowed to continue too
long. Help us put an age limit on boxing.

Thank you.

Senator Roth. Thank you.

Dr. Ward.

TESTIMONY OF DR. TIMOTHY W. WARD, 1 CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL
ADVISORY BOARD, PENNSYLVANIA STATE ATHLETIC COMMIS-
SION

Dr. Ward. Despite a popular public misconception, boxing does
not rank high on a risk of sporting endeavors which are associated
with acute death. The prevalence of boxing-related deaths has been
estimated to be around 0.13 per 1,000 participants. This compares
very favorably to other sports, as has already been mentioned.
While death in the boxing ring is certainly tragic when it occurs,
current medical supervision is able to almost eliminate this event
if appropriate medical guidelines are followed.

Clearly, the singularly most important and derisive medical issue
surrounding the sport of professional boxing has to do with the oc-
currence and possible prevention of chronic brain injury among its
participants.

Chronic traumatic boxers encephalopathy is a constellation of
different types of cerebral, cerebellar, psychiatric, and Parkinson-
ian symptoms. Its time of onset, rate of progression, and clinical
manifestations are quite variable. It may first make its appearance
after a particularly difficult match, at the end of a lengthy career,
or not until 20 to 25 years after the cessation of a boxer's career.

1 The prepared statement of Dr. Ward appears on page 151.

As stated, the rate of progression of this syndrome is quite vari-
able. Clearly, there are many individuals who have only a minor
static involvement, but there are others that have relentless pro-
gression eventually requiring permanent psychiatric institutional-
ization.

The clinical manifestation of this syndrome is exceedingly vari-
able. Early signs and symptoms include slurring of speech, diminu-
tion in cognitive function, particularly with respect to perception
and memory. Dementia can become exceedingly severe and eventu-
ally indistinguishable from severe Alzheimer's syndrome. Cerebel-
lar symptoms lead to poor coordination and unsteadiness in gait.
There may be weakness of the upper extremities or dragging of a
leg. Parkinsonian symptoms arise which lead to immobility of
facial appearance, slowness of movement, shuffling gait, rigidity,
and tremors. Psychiatric symptoms result in profound personality
deterioration with generalized lack of awareness and occasional
violent behavior. The syndrome complex may initially be difficult
to diagnose accurately because of the vast array of signs and symp-
toms.

The occurrence of this syndrome is much more common in pro-
fessional than in amateur boxers. It is directly related to the
length of a boxer's career and probably not to the number of times
he has been knocked down or out. The occurrence of the syndrome
increases with increasing age of the ex-boxer.

An excellent medical study reported in 1969 by Roberts which
looked at retired British professional boxers who had competed
prior to World War II estimated the prevalence of this syndrome to
be around 17 percent. There is no definitive work available to tell
us the modern day prevalence of this syndrome.

While modern day medical intervention probably has diminished
the frequency of this syndrome, there are disturbing trends which
continue to be present. Studies which have utilized sophisticated
CT or MRI imaging as well as neuropsychological testing continue
to demonstrate a high incidence of subclinical structural findings.
Whether these abnormal imaging findings and neuropsychological
tests are the precursors to a full-blown encephalopathy syndrome
can only be answered with a longitudinal follow-up of these
modern day boxers.

I believe that there are at least seven areas in which the sport of
boxing could be improved from a medical standpoint, thereby di-
minishing the occurrence of injury. These measures include better
medical supervision; shorter competitions; more consistent medical
administrative control of the sport both nationally and internation-
ally; more knowledgeable trainers, managers, promoters, and refer-
ees; appropriate gloves, rings, posts, and headgear; and improved
boxer education.

Better medical supervision can be subdivided into an improve-
ment in the quality of ringside physicians, institution of mandatory
medical suspensions, institution of a serial imaging screening pro
gram, assurance of acute life support measures, and development
of a comprehensive evacuation plan and neurosurgical support in
case of an emergency.

Ringside physicians should become more knowledgeable about
the sport of boxing. There is an abundance of medical literature

available in the way of refereed and non-refereed articles, books,
and book chapters to educate these physicians.

A physician should have freedom at ringside to stop a contest if
he or she feels that a boxer is in jeopardy. There should be no in-
terference in this regard from the State Boxing Commission or any
other concerned parties.

Medical suspensions should be strict and uniform. Currently, a
suspension in one State may either not be appreciated or ignored
in another State. Suspensions should also apply to sparring ses-
sions as well as competition.

Serial head scanning and ophthalmological examinations should
be instituted in order to detect early, subtle abnormalities and
thereby hopefully be able to prevent these abnormalities from de-
veloping into more serious problems.

A mechanism of medical supervision which is uniform nationally
should be instituted. Such supervision is not currently possible
within the financial budgets of most State Boxing Commissions.
Enhanced funding is clearly necessary to ensure uniform high-qual-
ity medical coverage.

It is important that trainers, managers, promoters, and especial-
ly referees all become better educated concerning the medical risks
inherent in boxing. The referee must recognize and understand the
serious implications of the so-called groggy state in which fighters
frequently find themselves. A contest should not be allowed to con-
tinue when one boxer has been concussed and is not adequately
able to defend himself.

Besides chronic brain injury in boxing, serious injury is also
noted in the musculoskeletal system and in the ocular system. The
incidence of retinal tears in professional boxers has been estimated
to be somewhere around 13 to 24 percent. This incidence is related
to the number of bouts fought and to the number of losses sus-
tained. Unfortunately, the boxer is usually asymptomatic when the
injury first occurs and therefore would only be picked up with ap-
propriate ophthalmological screening examinations. I would concur
with published recommendations advising annual ophthalmologic
exams.

Enactment of the preventive measures which I have mentioned
with respect to brain injury would also apply to prevention of
ocular or musculoskeletal injury.

In summary, I believe that professional boxing is a very difficult
sporting endeavor requiring significant dedication and hard work.
The participants expose themselves to significant medical risks,
particularly with respect to neurologic and ocular injury. The
boxing establishment, particularly the medical community, is at-
tempting to reduce these risks but the effectiveness of these risk
reduction measures cannot be determined until they are fully im-
plemented.

As is true with most complex social issues, and boxing is surely
more than simply a medical issue, there is room for compromise
and improvement. Diligent medical participation will continue to
enhance boxing safety. Ongoing expert care, sophisticated neurolog-
ical and ocular monitoring, and high-quality retrospective and pro-
spective medical studies, in conjunction with the institution of na-
tionally-accepted medical standards, will eventually provide an in-

disputable data base which society can use to help make an educat-
ed, unemotional decision on how it chooses to deal with the sport of
boxing.

Ultimately, it must be society that determines if the objectives of
boxing are appropriate for our culture and what level of inherent
medical risks we are prepared to accept as an unfortunate byprod-
uct of this sport.

Thank you.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Dr. Ward.

I think the testimony of all three of you is extremely helpful. I
gather from what you say, that with adequate medical guidelines,
the health and safety of the fighters could be substantially im-
proved.

Dr. Battalia, if I understood what you are saying, in the case of
Oregon, instead of strengthening the rules and guidelines, the prob-
lem is you are moving in the opposite direction. There is a move to
do away with even the State commission, is that correct?

Dr. Battalia. This is exactly correct. And without mentioning
the name, the speaker of our house is very much against our
boxing commission because we have been doing our job and in so
doing our job, we banned as a promoter his next-door neighbor and
he is a sleaze, to put it very bluntly, bad checks, advertising
matches that the boxers had never been even notified, and trying
to slip in people that in the National files shouldn't be boxing. So
we just banned him.

Well, we have a bill in this year to put a tax on pay-per-view be-
cause that is what one of the sources that we need just for operat-
ing expenses. We are a self-funded commission. Well, he has put
our bill in his favorite bury committee, so we have put in another
bill. If we can't operate properly, we want boxing and professional
wrestling banned from the State of Oregon. We do not want un-
regulated boxing.

Senator Roth. In other words, the current level is inadequate
and

Dr. Battalia. Well, I would say our current level right now, but
our funds are running out, is very adequate. I would put our physi-
cals with Barry's, but we are trying to be stopped.

Senator Roth. Dr. Jordan.

Dr. Jordan. In New York, we are probably in the forefront of
medical regulation in boxing, probably in the world. One of the
problems I have come across is that we don't have much difficult
implementing safety standards within New York. If a boxer in New
York, say, is knocked out, we routinely suspend the boxer from
anywhere from 30 to 90 days. In addition, we require that they
have a repeat CAT scan and EEG before they are allowed to box
again. Now unfortunately, if this is a boxer that comes from out of
State, after their suspension period is up they may box in another
State without that CAT scan or EEG.

I must admit, though, that New York State has afforded us the
monies to regulate the sport of boxing properly by requiring that
all our boxers have CAT scans, EEGs, dilated eye exams, and elec-
trocardiograms before they fight, and that is done on an annual
basis.

Senator Roth. Dr. Jordan, I think you raise a very important
point. If I understand what you are really saying, we really need
uniform guidelines and rules throughout this country.

Dr. Jordan. We need uniform guidelines and we also need — I
think even more so is the enforcement of the guidelines.

Senator Roth. Uniform enforcement.

Dr. Jordan. Enforcement, but one of the problems of that is the
cost. When I talk to other State commissions, ideally we have it
pretty good in New York in the sense that we are able to perform
all these tests on the boxers. But most States have not allocated
the money to perform these tests. I think part of the issue is finan-
cial and it is how much money is going to be made available for us
to properly medically regulate the sport.

Now, for instance, say if there was a uniform standard imple-
mented throughout the country and say if it didn't require the use
of a CAT scan or an EEG, now does that mean that in New York
we would have to stop doing CAT scans and EEGs, which I think
have been very helpful? And in fact, by us performing CAT scans
on boxers before they receive a license, I am convinced that I have
saved at least two or three boxers' lives by a pre-fight CAT scan
that was abnormal that I am 90 percent certain that if they would
have gotten in the ring it would have resulted in some type of cata-
strophic event.

So I think there is a role for the CAT scan or some type of neur-
oimaging procedure as a pre-fight scanning for boxing. If we had
uniform standards throughout the country, then you would have to
say that every State in the country would have to have a CAT
scan. From the monetary standpoint, I am not certain how feasible
that would be.

Senator Roth. Let me ask you this. What would be wrong with
having minimum standards but no bar for additional requirements
if the State commission so chose?

Dr. Jordan. I think that is definitely necessary.

Senator Roth. Dr. Battalia, go back to the question, do we need
minimum uniform standards?

Dr. Battalia. Absolutely.

Senator Roth. Can that be done through State commissions?

Dr. Battalia. Pardon.

Senator Roth. Can that be done through State commissions?

Dr. Battalia. Well, somebody has to say to the State, you shall
have this minimum standard. I have been to meetings for these
past 35 years. The ABC was formed with the idea of forming stand-
ards. I was one of the charter members. But when the individual
commissioners would go home, it never was accomplished in their
own bailiwick and it is frustrating.

IBF says the same thing. I mean, we have a good set of standards
which will apply to your champions, but how about the other four
preliminary fights on any card? The IBF doesn't have any control
over them, and there are some real, real bad pre-fights that you
see.

Senator Roth. Would you agree that there needs to be some kind
of a national organization to help bring about the kind of rules and
regulations and the enforcement we need?

Dr. Battalia. Well, I certainly think there has to be a rule that
says the commissions will go on a specific standard. As to who sets
that standard, I am a little bit ambivalent for that, I would just as
soon not have the Federal Government involved. I think this idea
of privatization, of a private committee, but the rule sets up that
there shall be a committee formed like this and all States will have
to comply or not have boxing. I would be totally

Senator Roth. Many of us would like to see the sport create its
own national organization, but if you look at the last 30 years, or
go back to whenever Senator Kefauver had his hearings, I can't see
a great deal of progress being made. So the question is, how do we
bring about the goal, the objective you are talking about if the in-
dustry or sport won't do it itself?

Dr. Battalia. I don't think the industry or the sport can, very
frankly, can actually do it for itself unless there is something out
there that says they can do it. This is the thing. IBF can't do it
because they have no control in any other State. In other words, it
is strictly a rating organization. And State A won't listen to the
suspensions that State B has.

Senator Roth. Who else is there besides the Federal Govern-
ment? I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but I am trying to
determine how we can bring about the desired result if we don't
move to the Federal Government.

Dr. Battalia. There certainly has to be a Federal law that says
there will be a standardization, and how you would go about the
mechanics, I would like to have it out of Washington, but maybe
that is the only way to go.

One way that could possibly be done, with ABC, which is the As-
sociation of Boxing Commissions, give them the authority to make
all States comply or the USBA portion of the IBF, which was the
parent organization to try to protect American boxers, let them
have the authority to say, this will be the minimum. That would be
another, which would be like having a baseball commissioner.

Senator Roth. What we are talking about in my proposed legisla-
tion is the creation of a public corporation that would be financed
by the sport itself and run much like baseball in that you would
have a very strong czar.

Dr. Battalia. I think that would work. I would be in favor of it.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Dr. Battalia.

I want to get to Dr. Ward in a minute, but Dr. Jordan, you have
something you want to say?

Dr. Jordan. I agree that I think it should be implemented on a
Federal level.

I just wanted to reemphasize one of the points made earlier.
Most of the lay population, when they look at boxing, they see the
high-profile boxers such as your Sugar Ray Leonards, Tysons, Rid-
dick Bowes, and by a long shot those individuals are not the major-
ity of the boxing population. And for years, I have been fearful of
what the outcomes are of boxers that are your 4-round, 6-round
boxers that may fight for 10 years, and in 10 years they may earn
$20,000, and then at the end of their career they suffer from neuro-
logical problems. I think these are the type of things we have to
prevent.

Senator Roth. Dr. Ward, would you care to comment on the need
for some kind of a professional corporation or organization to estab-
lish and enforce basic rules?

Dr. Ward. Well, I think that clearly boxing is an inherently dan-
gerous sport. I think its risks can be diminished with appropriate
medical supervision. I agree that the State of New York is at the
forefront in that movement, and I do also agree that there should
be uniform national medical standards and I think that there are
appropriately-educated people, medical individuals, in boxing that
have a good idea of what these standards should be at this point in
time.

Now how that is implemented is another issue, I guess. It takes
money, obviously, to implement these standards and to do it appro-
priately. Dr. Jordan has the benefit of having State funds available
to obtain CT scans, MRI scans, EEGs, things like that. As we are
well aware, medicine is very expensive these days. These tests
don't come cheaply.

Currently, in our State we have no mechanism other than forc-
ing promoters or managers to conform to some of these things.
That is always exceedingly difficult to do.

So I feel that there should be medical standards, they should be
enforced nationally, someone has to pay for it. If it can't be done at
each State level, if the States cannot come together as a group and
control themselves and enforce these standards, then I don't see
any other alternative than to having it enforced at a Federal level.

I have read some of the transcripts of what you have proposed,
Senator Roth, in your bill. I don't have any objections to it. As I
read it, you are not proposing to micromanage boxing, you are pro-
posing to have some fairly reasonable guidelines to improve health
and safety. So I have no problem with that.

I think that the medical situation in boxing has to improve. I
think there are individuals out there that are working to improve
it, but it is a difficult task when you have to fight the battle your-
self at each State level. If we can do it at the State level, that is
fine. If not, then another agency or branch of government may
have to intervene.

Senator Roth. Well, I think most of us would agree that the best
of all worlds would be self-regulation. The problem is despite hear-
ings held, as I say, way back in the days of Senator Kefauver, you
heard what Bill Richardson and my friend Senator Dorgan have
done on the House side, despite all these efforts down through the
years, we don't see any self-regulation happening.

And the thing that is of such concern, if I understand you gentle-
men, is that with the proper rules on health and safety, you can
minimize the risk — a dangerous sport, as you say, but you can min-
imize the risk, so that it seems to me time is of the essence, that
we need action and we need some way of standardizing it through-
out the country to ensure that the rules are complied with and not
avoided by hop-skipping.

We also have the problem John McCain has brought up of the
international situation.

I would like to say that I thought it could be done by self-regula-
tion and I would hope that even if we move towards some kind of a
public corporation, that down the road the industry or the sport

would take it over itself, just as they have in other sports. It seems
to me that is desirable.

Well, my time is up and I want to call on Senator Dorgan.

Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Battalia, you testified about something I had heard before,
and I am curious whether the other two doctors agree with you.
You indicated that, contrary to popular belief, the larger a boxing
glove, the more likely it is to cause serious damage to the fighter.
You say the safest fight would be between fighters wearing no
gloves.

Dr. Battalia. That is correct.

Senator Dorgan. The larger the glove and the more padding, the
more dangerous it is.

Dr. Battalia. It is not the padding, it is the amount of weight.

Senator Dorgan. The amount of weight

Dr. Battalia. Yes.

Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Or the force — the weight and the
force, I guess. You have a larger mass with the same force hitting a
surface.

Dr. Battalia. That is right.

Senator Dorgan. You are all saying there should be standards. I
am wondering, do you agree on what the standards should be? Do
you, Dr. Jordan, and do you, Dr. Ward, agree with Dr. Battalia that
there probably ought to be uniform weight with respect to boxing
gloves in all classes of fighters? And do you agree with his conten-
tion that the larger the glove, the more potential for damage?

Dr. Jordan. Well, I agree that there needs to be some type of
uniform standard established. My personal opinion is that really
the size of the glove really doesn't matter that much, not in the
sense that — not to get too technical, but if you remember your old
physics formula is force equals mass times acceleration. The force
of a punch is usually determined mostly by the acceleration, not so
much the mass. So whether it is an eight-ounce glove, a ten-ounce
glove, I don't think it makes much difference.

For example, if Mike Tyson was to swing at you with full force,
he would knock you out regardless of whether the glove was eight
ounces, ten ounces, or 12 ounces.

Senator Dorgan. But the reason I am asking this question is
that it is sort of contrary to what you believe as a kid. As a kid, my
parents bought us boxing gloves, myself and my brother, and the
biggest possible glove was kind of like batting each other with a
pillow. It was very large, very heavily padded, and therefore it
didn't hurt much. I happen to know that had my brother and I
used tiny little leather gloves that we used to use around the barn
to haul hay, it would have hurt a lot if we had hit each other with
exactly the same punch. That sort of defies what you are telling us.

There was a subdural hematoma in Texas in 1991. There was
some analysis of that by a commission in Texas, which really made
no specific recommendations other than the suggestion that heav-
ier or larger gloves be used. This analysis moves in exactly the op-
posite direction.

Dr. Battalia. Can I answer that?

Senator Dorgan. Sure.

Dr. Battalia. I ended up writing to the, I think it was the mayor
of the city where that death happened, and pointed this out to him
and I got a nice letter back because he was not aware of this.

The whole story on that was those were little 115-pound guys,
and both of them wanted 6-ounce gloves because an 8-ounce glove
on those little hands were sloppy, they didn't like them, they never
did like them, and it was agreed to let them use 6-ounce gloves,
which on those little hands were well padded.

The minute that there was this medical problem there, every-
body wanted to blame the glove. I don't think it happened that way
at all, and interestingly, within the next 60 days there was another
fight, similar weighted individuals, with 10-ounce gloves in which
the boxer had subdural. He recovered partially.

One of my friends over in England had a fight at the same time,
a little bit bigger guys with some 12-ounce gloves, and there was a
subdural hematoma and they almost lost that one, all within 60
days, gloves going from 6 ounces to 12.

My feeling is we are using Ensolite now instead of horsehair. It
used to be with horsehair, that was the standard. It filled up with
sweat, it got very heavy, it was a dangerous glove, and some of
these boxers knew how to move the horsehair around so they had
bare knuckles sticking out of there and they could cut a guy up
real well.

I think we have the materials, and this is what Barry and I have
talked about. There are different densities of Ensolite. We should
know which density is the best, and it is probably going to be two
densities, one softness for protecting the hand and the other the
padding for the blow. But what density, what thickness, and we
stop right there. The only difference in size would be the width
that you need. It is going to make a little difference in weight, but
you don't need to keep getting heavier and heavier gloves.

When you leave the meeting here, take a roll of nickels or a roll
of pennies in your hand and hit a cushion and see what happens
with that extra amount of weight. Even though you are not a
boxer, you will suddenly realize you jar the dickens out of your
hand.

Also, the boxing glove does protect the hand and an individual
that is boxing bare-handed cannot hit as hard because he doesn't
have the protection of his hand. He will break it up.

Senator Dorgan. Well, I appreciate that answer.

Let me just ask the Chairman whether there is another way to
address these problems. Couldn't this be some sort of private enter-
prise, a non-governmental regulation? The fact is, all of us are
dreaming if we think boxing is going to clean itself up, if we think
boxing is going to be a self-regulatory sport in which we have a
regulatory body with the authority to tell the various States what
they must do.

Now Mr. Jordan, you come from New York. You have a lot of
fights in New York, a lot of fights in New Jersey, a lot of fights in
Nevada. In many of the other States where there are fights, the
boxing commission is one person who probably doesn't know any-
thing about the sport. He or she just shows up at the fight, grins
from ear to ear just being around promoters and fighters, thinks it

is a terrific deal, but has never administered any safety rules or
has no rules and regulations. I mean, that is more typical.

I saw a fight one night, a boxing card, where in the undercard I
saw the same pair of trunks come out three times [Laughter.]

And I knew it was the same pair of trunks because it was stained
with blood in exactly the same place and didn't fit two of the
people that wore them. These are people who are hauled in from 50
miles, 200 miles away and paid $500 because a promoter needed an
opponent. And one of them, it turned out, didn't get a purse be-
cause he was on marijuana. It was pretty clear to everybody that
there was something wrong with this guy. That ended in the first
round. This was simply about money.

The shame of all of this is it is simply about money by people
who are using people, sending them into the ring in very unsafe
conditions.

The underpinning here has to be a central registry of all boxers
who enter a ring to fight in a professional fight. In this way, the
boxer's name and identification is part of the central registry and
we know whether they were knocked out the night before or the
week before in New Jersey and whether they are eligible to fight,
therefore, the next Saturday in Kansas. Right now, these same
boxers are able to fight under different names or under the same
name because the people in Kansas don't communicate with the
people in New Jersey.

My point is this is entirely driven by money. It is increasingly
concentrated in a few hands who have an enormous amount to lose
if they don't provide these opponents and they want the fight to go
on. There must be some kind of regulatory approach.

Now Congressman Richardson and I, I guess maybe 10 years ago,
actually, introduced the first bill established a national commission
in the Labor Department, the funding for which would have come
from an assessment against the purses, against the match. The var-
ious boxing matches would have paid a certain fee from those
matches into a pool to fund the commission.

This would not be a giant bureaucracy and would not cost the
taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Instead it would estab-
lish uniform safety standards across the country, uniform licensing
standards, a whole series of things that are necessary, including a
central registry to put boxing on the same footing that we would
expect it to be on with some of the other professional sports.

So I really appreciate the testimony you have given. All three of
you have contributed, I think, to this discussion.

Dr. Battalia, you wanted to respond.

Dr. Battalia. Yes, Senator. There is a gentleman out there by
the name of Citro who, as a hobby, has put together a computer
file on all boxers that information is sent to him. It is the biggest
file in the world. And any time of the day or night, you can call
that man and for $15 he will get up, go down and put in the tapes,
and give you the information on any boxer, and some of them he
can give you the information under three different names and four
different Social Security numbers. He knows them that well.

There you can't blame the promoter, it is a crazy boxer, and they
are funny people, some of them. You can't get them to quit.

Senator Dorgan. Had you ever heard of Mouse?

Dr. Battalia. I heard of that one, yes.

Senator Dorgan. I mean, he is relatively famous as the man who
has been knocked out more than any other man in the history of
boxing. He has fought under, I think he said, half-a-dozen names.

Dr. Battalia. Commissions don't use this information. That is
the thing that drives me crazy. Fortunately, I have an executive
that — I don't know the names when they are going to come into
town but he calls Citro, he may call him in the course of a fight ten
times. I want to know about this one, I want to know about this
one, and some of them he just says, no way, and that is it.

Senator Dorgan. And the promoter also has and has had histori-
cally a stake in trying to describe the opponent as having a record
that is vastly different than the actual record. If they are going to
bring in a Palooka that has won one fight and lost 20 in a row, who
is going to want to participate in paying for that fight? So they
bring in the same fighter and say that the person is a 12-and-3
fighter with nine knockouts — deliberate distortion of the facts, of
course, but it helps make the fight. And this person comes in, gets
knocked out in the second round and gets his $500 with the poten-
tial of getting severely injured.

Dr. Battalia. That is correct.

Senator Dorgan. And the person does it because it is the way
life is. There is nothing else to do because he is an opponent. That
is the way he makes his living.

Dr. Battalia. Yes.

Senator Dorgan. And they do it the next week as well, because
getting knocked out twice in a week or two weeks is not a big
thing, at least for people who are desperate for money.

Let me commend the Chairman. I appreciate your indulging me
with the time, but I really appreciate the testimony of all three of
you. I think it is excellent.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.

Senator Cohen.

Senator Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we have to clarify the use of words here. Dr. Battalia, you
said you would like to see some guidelines but I think what you
really mean is enforcement. A guideline to me is a recommenda-
tion about what should be done. Enforcement ensures what must
be done gets done. So we are not talking about guidelines, we are
talking about regulations. We would have to have regulations
which, by definition, would be enforceable.

Staff has indicated that Nevada does not allow the ring physician
to stop a bout. Is that correct?

Dr. Battalia. I think that is correct.

Senator Cohen. That is correct.

Dr. Battalia. That is correct in our State too.

Senator Cohen. Is that something you all support, preventing a
ring physician from stopping a bout?

Dr. Battalia. I do not want a ring physician to stop the bout be-
cause when that happens — my cohorts here may disagree with
me — but what worries me when that is going on is immediately the
referee who is right there, he is face to face, he can see a change in
the boxer's eyes, he will wait then for the doctor to say, stop the

fight, and there may be 20 more blows thrown before he finally de-
cides it is time to stop it.

Senator Cohen. Don't ring physicians usually stop fights in the
corner on cuts?

Dr. Battalia. That is fine. I have never had a referee, when I
have looked at a cut and just nodded, or even if somebody gets cut,
he turns over at ringside and I go like this [indicating with a nod
and also a shake of his head], he will stop it right then. But official-
ly, he should be the one who stops the fight.

If you have a referee that will not take the word of a physician
looking in the corner, I don't want that referee around any place in
this world. He is dangerous.

Senator Cohen. Dr. Jordan

Dr. Battalia. The first safety factor for a boxer is the referee.
The physician is No. 2.

Senator Cohen. OK. Dr. Jordan.

Dr. Jordan. In New York, we do have the opportunity for the
physician to stop the fight in the middle of a round. I feel that it is
an additional safety factor. The physician is not there to take the
place of the referee, but on occasion, like all humans, referees can
make errors and they may not stop the fight in time. This way, the
physician can jump up on the apron after you jump into the ring
and stop the fight. There have been several times I have actually
stopped fights myself.

We don't have any problems with the referees, having the ring-
side physician having that opportunity, and in fact, it probably
keeps referees on their toes a little bit more.

Senator Cohen. Dr. Ward.

Dr. Ward. Well, I think it is essential that a physician have the
authority to stop a bout. In an ideal situation, in a very competent
referee, it should never be a problem because the referee is closest
to the action. They should be stopping these bouts when it is appro-
priate. But it is an imperfect world and that doesn't always
happen.

Despite the fact that an individual can be involved in the sport
of boxing 30, 40 years as a referee, I must tell you, I don't think
there is — frequently referees don't appreciate what a concussed
state is. Most do, but there are some that don't. There are some
that are a step behind the action at times. We have all witnessed
that on television, various other avenues, so I

Senator Cohen. I watched the Tommy Morrison fight and I won-
dered where the referee was

Dr. Ward. Right.

Senator Cohen [continuing]. When Morrison was just being pum-
meled while he was helpless on the ropes.

Dr. Ward. So I feel it is essential that a physician have the au-
thority to do that. With all due respect to all the seasoned referees
that there are in the world, I don't believe there is any referee
more capable than myself to understand when someone is con-
cussed and when someone is at risk for further injury.

So if I am working a bout, I want to have the authority to stop a
bout if I feel that it should be stopped. So I think it is very impor-
tant that the physician have that authority.

Senator Cohen. Dr. Battalia.

Dr. Battalia. Could I add to that? Barry and Dr. Ward over
here, I know, have to work with a lot more referees than I do. We
are a small boxing State. But, in some States they don't know who
the doctor is going to be hardly before the bout. It may be a pedia-
trician. If he sees two drops of blood, he is frantic. That can happen
too.

If, with what you gentlemen plan, you have a standardization
also of what it takes to be a ringside physician, then I would have
no problem with it. But sometimes untrained physicians are apt to
stop an important bout too soon because there is some blood flow-
ing.

And again, as I said, I don't want the referee thinking, well,
what is the doctor thinking, is he going to stop it or isn't he? Once
in a while, I will have one of my referees come over and say, you
know, I am sorry I stopped that one. Maybe I should have let it go
a little bit further. And I will jump on their toes and say, you have
never heard me complain when you stop a bout. If you stopped it
too soon, fine, we can have a rematch 3 months down the line. You
stop it.

Senator Cohen. Last year, Bob Arum testified before the Sub-
committee that Jose Sulaiman used the threat of disbarment for an
eye injury to force Julian Jackson to resign with Don King. Have
any of you ever heard of other instances of medical examinations
being used or misused in this fashion?

Dr. Jordan. Not in New York State.

Dr. Battalia. No, I haven't.

Senator Cohen. Dr. Battalia, this was something of an education-
al experience for me, as it was for others, in terms of the lighter-
weight gloves. I was wondering, does the same principle apply to
football helmets? If you take, for example, the Jim Thorpe leather
helmets they used to wear back in the 1920s or 1930s and compare
that to the helmets they wear today, would you say that head inju-
ries have been substantially reduced by the football helmet of
today versus that of the Jim Thorpe days?

Dr. Battalia. There has been a lot of work. Wasn't it Cornell
that did the initial work on the helmet, and they started using En-
solite as a basket on the inside and one of the things they wanted
to do was to put an Ensolite pad in the front because of two line-
men getting together and clanking heads.

But here you have the helmet is only moving at the speed of the
body, it is not being swung on the end of an arm that long.

Senator Cohen. Really?

Dr. Battalia. I hope not. [Laughter.]

Senator Cohen. In football they have a thing called a clothesline
tackle which clearly causes injuries.

Dr. Battalia. Well, no, but you were asking about the weight of
the helmet.

Senator Cohen. If that principle is right, lighter-weight gloves
would increase the risk of bone injuries or hand injuries. Would it
change boxing by allowing or mandating lighter-weight gloves?
Would that force fighters to go for less head shots and more body
shots?

Dr. Jordan. Well, I think the issue

Senator Cohen. Or is it that boxers don't care?

Dr. Jordan. Well, I think one of the issues is more complicated
than that. In my testimony, I mentioned the lack of research, and
to be honest with you, medical research in boxing has been very
poor. So if we were to have some type of legislative change to im-
plement changes in equipment, we really wouldn't know if there is
a change in the prevalence because the statistics and the data is
not kept now.

So I think this discussion also highlights the problems with the
lack of research. Like in football, the headgear or the helmet in
football has been researched extensively, whereas the headgear in
boxing has not been investigated at all. As a matter of fact, I was
reviewing a court case, the suit against Everlast, and they had a
research department researching the standards of the headgear
and they hadn't done any research in the last 15 years.

Senator Cohen. We haven't done much research in the way of
padding versus

Dr. Jordan. Right.

Senator Cohen [continuing]. Non-padding on the gloves, is that
correct?

Dr. Battalia. That is correct, other than they do know, they did
do some research at Texas, I believe it was.

Dr. Jordan. Annapolis.

Dr. Battalia. Pardon.

Dr. Jordan. Annapolis.

Senator Cohen. Dr. Battalia, you talked about a friend in Eng-
land. How do other countries deal with boxing in terms of regula-
tion?

Dr. Battalia. Well, England is quite well regulated. Dr. White-
son there is the chief physician and he has something like 50 doc-
tors and it is the entire country is operated. But very interestingly,
there is not a national commission or State commissions. Actually,
their commissioned bodies are really made up of managers and pro-
moters, of all the crazy things, but it is regulated within its own.
But I know the medicals are pretty good because of Whiteson. He
cracks a real whip.

Senator Cohen. Thank you very much. My time is up.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Senator Cohen.

Gentlemen, I think there may be additional questions so we will
keep the record open in case anyone wants to submit a question in
writing.

I want to express my great appreciation for all three of you being
here. I think your testimony is extremely helpful and we would
like to continue working with you as we seek to bring about some
improvement in the areas you have discussed.

Thank you very much.

At this time, I would like to call our next witness, Seth G. Abra-
ham. Mr. Abraham is President and Chief Executive Officer of
Time Warner Sports, a subsidiary of HBO. I want to thank him for
his willingness to assist the staff in the course of this investigation
and for his testimony here today. He knows a great deal about the
role TV plays in boxing today. We look forward to his testimony.

As you know, Mr. Abraham, we swear in all witnesses, so if you
would please rise and raise your right hand.

Do you swear the testimony you present to this Subcommittee
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?

Mr. Abraham. I do.

Senator Roth. Thank you. Please be seated and proceed.

TESTIMONY OF SETH G. ABRAHAM, 1 PRESIDENT, TIME WARNER

SPORTS (HBO)

Mr. Abraham. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee.

My name, as you have heard, is Seth Abraham and I am Presi-
dent of Time Warner Sports, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Home
Box Office, Inc. For the past 15 years, I have directed the negotia-
tions for the telecasting of professional prize fights on Home Box
Office. Additionally, 2 years ago HBO launched a boxing pay-per-
view network we call TVKO, which I also oversee. Between our 2
networks, we broadcast approximately 20 professional prize fights
each year.

Senator McCain asked earlier what was the response to the Com-
mittee's bill among the boxing community. Steve Levin answered
that there is a problem in getting support for the bill's specifics. I
will, during the course of my testimony and probably during the
questions and answers, support particular specifics in your bill,
eight things in particular that I unequivocally support.

I would also like to thank the Committee for giving me the op-
portunity to express my views and support in large measure what
you are trying to do.

As you well know, Congressional committees have conducted
boxing probes in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, but I do
believe that Senator Roth's bill has the potential to significantly
improve boxing both inside and outside the ring.

I would also make a historical note that 96 years ago next
week — I believe you have hearings next Wednesday — was the first
full-length moving pictures taken of a prize fight in Carson City,
Nevada, so boxing and television and the movies have been around
together for a while.

First, let me discuss the issues inside the ring. I applaud your ef-
forts to reform the conduct of the matches themselves. If you are
successful, you will achieve two very noteworthy goals. Men who
box for a living will be safer with more thoughtful safety protec-
tions, and equally significant, fans who support the sport will have
a higher regard for boxing's credibility. In that measure, everybody
gains, the prize fighters and the fans. It is for that very fundamen-
tal reason that we strongly support legislation.

There are several provisions of your bill which we feel are par-
ticularly important and deserve elaboration because they enhance
the safety of the boxers and the conduct of what happens inside the
ropes.

Senator Dorgan mentioned a minute ago, and we strongly urge
and support, an international computerized clearinghouse which
should be established as a repisitory for fighters' medical records,

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Abraham appears on page 153.

their won /loss records, videotapes of all televised prize fights for
reference purposes by everybody interested in matches. Home Box
Office and TVKO would be pleased to make available all video-
tapes of our bouts for this purpose.

Second, annual licenses should be mandatory for boxers, referees,
and judges.

Third, 3-year certificates of registration for managers, promoters,
and trainers should be required.

Fourth, a key provision should be there to protect and ensure the
safety of fighters by establishing uniform rules to govern the con-
duct, the refereeing, the scoring of professional prize fights.

Fifth, a Federal Boxing Commission should also impose stand-
ards for emergency medical services at every professional match.

Sixth, a Federal Boxing Commission should establish minimum
standards for full physical and neurological examinations and
minimal standards for the actual participation in a professional
prize fight.

Seventh, the boxing community, not the Federal Boxing Commis-
sion, should explore how to establish a life, accident, and health in-
surance fund for professional boxers. A portion of the total reve-
nues generated by each professional prize fight, including televi-
sion, should be set aside for this purpose.

And eighth, the Federal Boxing Commission should establish
minimum standards for the manufacture and use of boxing equip-
ment, as the gentleman behind me discussed several moments ago.

I wish to point out to you that these reforms all have to do with
the conduct of a fight inside the ring and the very physical safety
of the men who box for a living. They deserve to be safeguarded
because boxing is a hard way to earn an easy dollar.

Earlier in this statement, I suggested to the Committee that the
scope of your probe should include as well the study of what goes
on outside of the ropes that form the square in which fighters go to
work. It is their office. That, too, needs careful study and consider-
ation.

I have met twice with representatives of this Committee suggest-
ing to them an examination of how the business of boxing conducts
itself. I have sought to paint a detailed picture of how boxing nego-
tiations are conducted and how television distribution deals are
made. I have also responded to Subcommittee questions about how
boxers are ranked, unranked, deranked, not ranked at all, and how
the four governing organizations govern or not.

These ranking organizations are, unfortunately, often part of the
problem, not part of the solution as they should be. Fans support
boxing like any other sport. If fans lose their belief in boxing's le-
gitimacy, the entire industry of boxing, the prize fighters, the man-
agers, the promoters, the arenas, the television networks suffer.
Truly, fans are the organ grinders, we are just the monkeys.

I believe revised standards and uniform regulations for the con-
duct of boxing's business should be examined carefully. In contrast
to the health and safety and related issues discussed above, I do
not believe that sweeping regulation of the business of boxing is
necessary or appropriate. There are, however, at least two areas
which merit your attention: (1), how do the four governing bodies

65-875 0-93-3

impact the sport, and (2), how conflicts of interest may adversely
affect the prize fighters themselves.

Quite possibly, the most arcane and pernicious rules of the self-
professed governing organizations are how they rate and rank prize
fighters within 17, not 16, but 17 weight classes. Champions of
some organizations are not even ranked in competing organiza-
tions. The undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, Riddick
Bowe, is a nonperson in the WBC, the World Boxing Council. In
1992, Riddick Bowe was actually lowered in the WBC's ratings
from No. 1 to No. 2, and the fighter who replaced him, Donovan
"Razor" Ruddock, lost both of his fights during the like period of
time.

This points to the need for an independent body, as others have
said, that has no financial interest to rank fighters based on won/
loss records, not byzantine politics. We support this very important
reform.

To the extent that conflicts of interest may exist in the boxing
business, HBO has neither the power nor the authority to police
such conflicts. I believe, however, that the best way to deal with
these conflicts is mandatory disclosure of information to the
boxers, State, and Federal regulatory bodies. If you can ensure that
everyone has full knowledge of the facts, then I believe you have
gone a long way towards limiting the harmful effects of conflict of
interest.

I am often asked if I consider boxing a sport. After all, one plays
football, one plays tennis, one plays basketball. You don't say that
you play boxing. It is a very serious sport and a. very serious busi-
ness.

When asked about boxing and whether it is a sport, ageless but
not speechless George Foreman had this to say: "Boxing is sort of
like jazz. The better one performs it, the less amount of people can
really appreciate it." But boxing is a sport with thousands of prac-
titioners and millions of fans through the United States and tens of
millions around the world.

In fact, America's first identifiable sports hero was the heavy-
weight boxing giant John L. Sullivan, who did business as "The
Boston Strongboy" throughout the 1880s and 1890s. Sullivan en-
tered boxing lore and was held in the highest esteem when he
vowed and delivered on a promise, "I can lick any man in the
house."

Senators if your hearings and legislation can lick just some of
boxing's problems and shortcomings, real fight fans and prize fight-
ers would regard you in high esteem as well.

Thank you for this chance to express my views, and I hope they
are of some value to you.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Mr. Abraham, for being here today.
Your help with the staff and your being here is indeed a positive
contribution.

Earlier today, my good friend and colleague, Senator John
McCain, quoted you as saying that boxing is the red-light district of
sports. Could you explain that statement?

Mr. Abraham. Well, actually I am quoting Damon Runyon, who
picked it up from, I think, Westbrook Pegler.

Boxing is a tough business. It is a tough business for the prize
fighters, it is a tough business for the people who are involved in it.
The rules, such as they are, are very amorphous and you really
have to keep your wits about you, as the fighters do in the ring.
And yet it is very, very popular. It has great fans, great athletes,
great writing. It is here to stay.

Senator Roth. Let me quote how Sports Illustrated referred to
you. They called you "the heaviest hitter in the world of profession-
al boxing," noting that you, and I quote, "control to a large degree
that colorful business."

Now I suspect as a modest individual you will not necessarily
agree with that statement, but it raises two questions in my mind
and I think it is certainly true that you are a heavy hitter and
your industry is of critical importance to the sport of boxing.

One question I have is why can't the sport itself self-regulate?
Would it be possible for somebody like yourself and your industry,
together with others, to provide the kind of leadership that would
bring about the same kind of self-regulation you have in other
sports — baseball, football? I think everybody would prefer, if practi-
cal, to not get government involved, the Federal Government, but
there seems to be no alternative.

Could you comment on that?

Mr. Abraham. Senator, I weight 168 pounds. That would make
me a super middleweight, not a heavyweight, and in fact, I think
that article was more colorful than factual.

But more to your point, I have been sitting here since the very
beginning of your hearings this morning and listening and taking
notes and I literally put something at the very end of my remarks.

Boxing is very complex. Just this morning, since about nine-
thirty, you have talked about uniform refereeing, uniform scoring,
boxing equipment, the responsibility of ringside physicians, the or-
ganizations' ratings and rankings, conflicts of interest, medical
records, and the lack of medical research.

There may not be another way. Maybe that response surprises
you, but there may not be another way. There are four organiza-
tions, two of which are outside of the United States. They are
feudal duchies. It is sort of like Italy in the 15th century. Each one
is sort of an independent State, and I dare say that there is no one
person, no one organization extant in boxing today who could clean
up the sport and reform the sport.

I regret that, because from a television perspective, if fans like
boxing, believe in boxing, hold boxing in high regard, that is good
for our business.

Senator Roth. Well, in the alternative, let me ask you to do this,
because I think that you and others in similar positions do carry
great weight. I think there is a broad consensus, not entirely
throughout the industry, however, that some step along the lines of
what I or my good friend Bill Richardson am proposing is needed
at the Federal level.

It would be most helpful to us, and let me thank you for your
endorsement of our legislation in your opening remarks, but it
would be most helpful if we could get active support from boxing
itself in supporting this legislation that we want to enact.

What concerns me is that there have been hearings for 30 years
on this matter and very little has happened, and I don't want that
to happen again. I want to see some constructive action, as one
who believes boxing should continue.

I would hope that you and others like you, but particularly you
because of your most critically important role, could garner sup-
port, active support for legislation along the lines we discussed.

Mr. Abraham. I would say, Senator, that in some corners of the
sport we could. Regrettably, in most we couldn't. HBO/Time
Warner Sports is an influential, not the most powerful, but we are
indeed a very influential member of the boxing community. But for
many reasons, much of which you talked about today and I intend
to elaborate at least on 1 or 2, there are so many self-interests in
boxing that it is very hard to find any community of interest on
most of these issues.

You have talked and others have talked about the boxing organi-
zations. There are four organizations. There are 17 weight classes.
My arithmetic tells me that is potentially 68 world champions.
Now it happens that there aren't, there are certain men who hold
two belts, but I can tell you as we sit here today there is no man in
boxing who can say, I am the undisputed champion of my weight
class.

Riddick Bowe beat the man, Evander Holyfield, who beat the
man, Buster Douglas, who beat the man, Mike Tyson, who beat the
man, who goes all the way back to John L. Sullivan. Riddick Bowe
is the lineal descendant of John L. Sullivan 110 years later and one
organization doesn't list him as the champion. There is something
wrong there.

Well, what is wrong is a self-interest to have multiple champions,
multiple sanction fees, multiple license fees. Ultimately, that hurts
the sport. That hurts the sport. Forget television, that just hurts
the sport.

So could we pull together some community of interest? Yes, we
could, but regrettably it wouldn't be universal.

Senator Roth. Whatever you can pull together would be a posi-
tive factor.

Mr. Abraham. I like to think we do. We do title fights even after
men have been stripped of their belts, because the organization
says, you are no longer our champion, we continue to proceed with
those prize fights.

Senator Roth. Let me ask you this, Mr. Abraham. Does HBO
contract directly with individual boxers?

Mr. Abraham. In fact, Senator, there is a page in the staff report
which was brought to my attention this morning, and it says that
Time Warner Sports sometimes negotiates and enters into contrac-
tual arrangements directly with boxers. I think that is miscasting
it.

We have several contracts in which the fighter is party to the
contract. We now have a George Foreman contract in which
George Foreman is a party to the contract. We did not negotiate
that deal with George Foreman, it was negotiated with his promot-
er and his adviser and Foreman was party to it, but here is the
key. George Foreman goes fight by fight with his promoter. His
promoter could not contract George Foreman to a three-fight con-

tract but George Foreman wanted to enter into that deal so George
Foreman is a party to it.

There are other fighters, Senator, who do not have a manager.
Ray Leonard when he was fighting did not have a manager, he had
a legal adviser, and there were times that Ray Leonard would be
party to the contract. We do not deal directly with fighters, as this
statement would imply.

Senator Roth. My time on the first round is up.

Senator Cochran.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN

Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I came over here to learn
about the issue. As a new member of the committee, I am aware of
your interest in the subject matter and I want to commend you for
your leadership in developing the legislation and convening hear-
ings and helping to lead the staff to review this very important
area of interest.

I tend to approach these issues with some caution about the need
for new Federal legislation in an area that may have been regulat-
ed by some States very well, and I was wondering whether or not
Mr. Abraham has an opinion about whether some States have done
an exceptionally good job of boxing regulation to the extent that
we might look to those States for leadership in developing a Feder-
al format or Federal standards.

I think about Nevada and New York, States where I know I have
watched fights on television broadcast from those States since I
was a youngster, and identify them with experience in this area.
There are many other States. Although John L. Sullivan fought
some of his great fights on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, they weren't
broadcast on television and I don't know that we even have a State
Boxing Commission or regulation in my State. I am just not famil-
iar with it.

What is your

Mr. Abraham. Yes, you do.

Senator Cochran. What is your view of State regulation in this
area? Does Nevada or New York or some other State have a model
regulatory commission that we might consider reviewing for the
purpose of writing Federal regulations?

Mr. Abraham. Senator Cochran and Senator Roth, I think you
have hit on something. There are a number of States, Nevada, New
York, California, New Jersey, that the State athletic commissions
are very progressive, I believe have great integrity. And I think if
you sat down with their chairmen and commissioners and sort of
put together the outline of what a regulatory body could look like,
the best of all these States, the best of their rules, the standardiza-
tion of their rules.

I am well aware of why these hearings began because I was at
home and I watched the Toney-Tiberi fight as a fan and as some-
body in the business. It was an extraordinarily close fight, but
there are terms in boxing that are arcane to all but a few people in
this room, ring generalship, effective aggression. But if you go to
these States and try to get some sort of standardized rules, I think

that is a terrific starting point, because these men and women care
about the sport and they have obviously demonstrated it.

I would say those four States — I would add California to that
list — I would say those are the five that come to my immediate
mind.

Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Senator Cochran.

Mr. Abraham, your statement suggests that while you think
some additional regulation of boxing inside the ring may be war-
ranted, you are not so certain that more uniform regulation out-
side the ring is needed. But isn't that part of the purpose of cur-
rent regulation, to prevent the financial exploitation of boxers?
Isn't that why managers are limited in most States to one-third of
the boxer's purse, and that most States also require purse money to
be physically delivered by a boxing commission representative di-
rectly to the boxer?

We have found that unscrupulous managers and promoters
easily evade the current regulations to the financial detriment of
boxers. Do you disagree with that conclusion?

Mr. Abraham. Senator, my father and my wife taught me to be
an idealist. There are certain rules, skinny as they may be, that
protect the fighter. New York State has them in terms of percent-
ages that a fighter must give to a manager, a promoter, a trainer.
There are certain States that do protect that.

I would like to see somebody go further. The organizations — I
think if there is a way to create a ranking body that has no finan-
cial interest in a prize fight, no sanctioning fee. Why the hell
should Evander Holyfield have to spend $600,000 to defend his
belts? For the life of me, I don't understand that. I don't under-
stand that. I don't care if it is $1, I don't understand why a fighter
has to pay a sanctioning fee. What do these organizations do?

So my recommendation would be, again going further, to try to
look at the organizations, protecting the fighters that way. Riddick
Bowe is now heavyweight champion but who was there to protect
Riddick Bowe when he got pushed down to No. 2, to a fighter who
is and 2, there was no one there to protect him. There is where
fighters at all levels, not just the championship levels, at all levels
fighters need protection.

Senator Roth. So you believe it is important that we take away
the ranking from these sanctioning bodies and put it into some
kind of independent

Mr. Abraham. Not only independent, but somebody who has ab-
solutely no fiduciary involvement in who wins or who loses or
where the fight takes place, is absolutely pristine in ranking the
fighter.

Senator Roth. Would that be one individual or some kind of a
committee?

Mr. Abraham. In major league baseball, there is a panel to elect
members, both living and deceased, into the Baseball Hall of Fame,
and I think this is as close as I can recommend to you. And that
panel who elects ballplayers into the Hall of Fame is an amalgama-
tion of sports writers, officials, ex-players, no current players but
ex-players, and it is a representative sampling of the sport of major

league baseball. I think some representative body like that would
be most effective.

Senator Roth. I was intrigued to learn that boxing attracts the
highest ratings of all programming at HBO, with big fights out-
drawing even Michael Jackson and Madonna; is that correct?

Mr. Abraham. That is absolutely true. The highest-rated pro-
gramming on Home Box Office on the Nielsen ratings are the big
prize fights.

Senator Roth. Let me ask you, what are the primary revenue
sources for HBO? How many subscribers do you have?

Mr. Abraham. Home Box Office today has approximately 18 mil-
lion subscribers in all 50 States. As many of you know, we have no
advertising so our revenue stream comes from subscriber fees,
monthly subscriber fees.

Senator Roth. What is the difference between HBO Sports and
TVKO?

Mr. Abraham. HBO Sports is one of the programming compo-
nents of Home Box Office. There are five or six other units. HBO
Sports is one of them, much like the commercial networks would
have a sports department.

In April of 1991, HBO Sports, Time Warner Sports, launched a
boxing pay-per-view network that we call TVKO, which is a per-
charge, not a per-month, but a per-charge fee to see our fights.

Senator Roth. Mr. Abraham, I greatly appreciate your being
here today and your most helpful testimony. I would like to call on
you further as we try to proceed with the enactment of legislation.
I think someone in your very key role can be most helpful.

Mr. Abraham. I would be pleased to.

Senator Roth. I certainly appreciate your being here today.
Thank you very much.

Mr. Abraham. Thank you.

Senator Roth. Our final witness today will be Michael Aresco.
Mr. Aresco is Program Manager for ESPN.

Mr. Aresco, if you would stay standing. As you know, you have to
be sworn in. Would you raise your right hand?

Do you swear the testimony you will give before the Subcommit-
tee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?

Mr. Aresco. I do.

Senator Roth. Thank you. Please be seated.

I want to thank you, Mr. Aresco, for you and your staff coopera-
tion during this investigation.

Please proceed with your statement. As I said earlier, if you can
summarize it in part, the full statement will be included as if read.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL L. ARESCO, 1 PROGRAM MANAGER,

ESPN, INC.

Mr. Aresco. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Michael
Aresco. I am a program manager in the ESPN Programming De-
partment. ESPN is the Nation's largest cable network, reaching ap-

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Aresco appears on page 155.

proximately 61.8 million homes. It is an all-sports network which
has programmed over 60 different kinds of sports. As a program
manager, I acquire and manage programming in various catego-
ries, including college football, rodeo, other equestrian program-
ming. I have handled NCAA championships, yachting, fitness and
aerobic shows.

One of my current programming responsibilities is ESPN's
boxing. I have been with the network 8 years and was Assistant
General Counsel before joining the Programming Department.

In April, ESPN celebrates the 13th anniversary of our popular
and successful Top Rank boxing series, which features up-and-
coming fighters as well as established fighters, although we do not
do the million-dollar fights. That is not our area. The series has
featured, however, important title fights, world title fights, and en-
tertaining and significant non-title fights, and over the years we
have televised occasional boxing cards from other promoters, which
we refer to as wildcard fights.

Boxing is a major and popular sport among our viewers world-
wide. Our philosophy, as manifested in our series, has been and re-
mains to provide our viewers with the best-quality fights that they
would most want to watch. We are proud of the integrity, stability,
longevity, and ratings and production success of the series.

Let me give you briefly some background on how we program
boxing at ESPN. We televise approximately 40 boxing cards per
year. Virtually all are live although this year we may do several
that would be taped. As best I can determine, we do about 20 per-
cent of the televised boxing in the United States. ,

Top Rank is the company that provides us with most of our
boxing. Top Rank arranges the match-ups, employs matchmakers
who try to create exciting, competitive quality bouts which make
for good television. Top Rank handles all the arrangements neces-
sary to stage the events for television. We, in turn, select the an-
nouncers and commentators and produce the telecasts. Included
are various features that we also telecast, such as our "Ringside
Report" which features current news.

Our boxing mix consists of fights in most weight classes. For ex-
ample, we recently televised the IBF cruiserweight title fight be-
tween Alfred Cole and Uriah Grant. Riddick Bowe, Mike Tyson,
and Tommy Hearns have all fought on Top Rank boxing as they
were ascending in their careers.

Additionally, ESPN televises historical boxing matches we call
"Superbouts." These are 1-hour shows featuring footage of famous
fights such as Ali-Norton, Leonard-Duran, or compilation shows
such as George Foreman's knockouts.

A gauge of boxing's popularity is our high ratings for the Top
Rank series. In 1992, we averaged a 2.2 rating for 40 cards. A
rating point represents 1 percent of ESPN's viewer universe of ap-
proximately 61.8 million households, as I alluded to. This translates
to approximately 618,000 homes. A 2.2 rating would therefore rep-
resent approximately 1,360,000 households who regularly watch
ESPN's Top Rank boxing.

We take measures to safeguard the integrity of our boxing. Top
Rank does not use fighters whose records cannot be verified by the
well-respected Ralph Citro Record Service and there are absolutely

no exceptions. All feature match fighters must have winning
records. We require Top Rank to sign a quarterly certificate certi-
fying that all information to be provided to ESPN during the af-
fected calendar quarter with respect to all fighters appearing on
ESPN is true and correct.

In summary, boxing is an important part of ESPN's program-
ming mix and it has consistently been one of our highest-rated
series over the years.

Thank you.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Mr. Aresco.

I believe you have been sitting here this morning during these
hearings and probably heard the testimony of the problems with
State regulation of boxing, the ease with which the rules can be
avoided and the problems that are inherent in getting any mini-
mum health and safety rules.

Would you be supportive of some approach such as my legisla-
tion to create a public corporation to regulate boxing?

Mr. Aresco. Senator, we would welcome anything and any ap-
proach that would improve boxing, as we would in any sport. Uni-
formity would appear to have many advantages. Minimum stand-
ards from State to State clearly would appear to have many advan-
tages.

I want to be cautious, because as a programming and a television
network, we don't necessarily have an opinion on how best to go
about this or how it should be handled. It isn't in the scope of our
authority. Obviously we are an interested party. I think we prob-
ably ultimately lack the expertise. The headgear issue was a per-
fect example of where we might think that heavier gloves or head-
gear would be a better thing and apparently it is not. Seth Abra-
ham referred to the complexity of these issues and therefore we
are cautious.

We ourselves do not feel we are the problem because we feel we
take stringent measures and we require our packager, Top Rank,
to take stringent measures to ensure the safety and integrity of our
boxing and we rely on their expertise.

We certainly want to be helpful, but I don't know that it is
within our bailiwick to have a particular opinion about this, other
than, again, uniformity and minimum standards would appear, in
my judgment, to be useful.

Senator Roth. A number of witnesses have testified that if some-
thing isn't done to "clean up the sport," that boxing is going to lose
the confidence of the public. I assume that would be a concern to
you as one who provides boxing to much of the public.

Mr. Aresco. It is, Senator, and we feel that the marketplace
would demand that our boxing have integrity and we do everything
we can to ensure it.

I think the question becomes, which of the measures are most ap-
propriate, and I am just not sure we are in a position necessarily to
know that or to be able to comment.

Senator Roth. Do you agree that there should be some uniformi-
ty throughout the country as to basic health and safety rules?

Mr. Aresco. In my judgment, there would definitely seem to be a
need for that. There was an allusion made and references made to
certain commissions being stronger than others — Nevada, New

York, California, New Jersey. Those are the places where we do
the bulk of our boxing and it is my understanding that those, espe-
cially Nevada, are strong commissions with strong requirements,
and obviously we would support and applaud that and any effort to
make those stronger.

Senator Roth. Notwithstanding that testimony, we also have evi-
dence, for example, that a boxer in one of those States that is sus-
pended from further boxing easily avoids those rules, so that ac-
cepting at face value that those States have strong commissions, al-
though we had some evidence last summer that some of them,
their enforcement of the rules leaves something to be desired, there
is still the ability to avoid restrictions, because of the differences
between states.

For example, we are told that sanctioning bodies can often over-
rule a State commission because they will tell the State commis-
sion, well, if you don't agree with us as to who is going to be the
referee or the judges or whatever, we will just take the fight some-
where else. Do you see that as a problem?

Mr. Aresco. That would be, and in fact, in title fights where
there is a sanctioning body involved, it is my understanding that
the sanctioning body can overrule State commissions, pick referees,
etc.

Top Rank, our packager which organizes our boxing, disagrees
with that policy and would rather see the State commissions have
that control. And again, Top Rank has been at this a long time and
has improved over the years and has worked hard on its methods. I
believe that that is something that the committee would want to
know, that Top Rank does not support that.

Senator Roth. What are the primary revenue sources for ESPN?

Mr. Aresco. We generate revenues from affiliate monthly fees
and also from the sale of advertising time, primarily.

Senator Roth. It is my understanding there is a difference in the
type of boxing matches which would appear on your respective net-
works, with HBO and TVKO doing what is called megafights and
ESPN doing marquee fights.

What is the difference? Can you give us some examples of fights
the networks broadcast?

Mr. Aresco. Yes. Over the years, Senator, we have featured for
the most part up-and-coming young fighters who are not as well
known to the general public, whereas HBO and TVKO in turn
would concentrate on major title fights involving purses of millions
of dollars.

Our boxing is, I think, several levels above club boxing. We do
feature title fights from time to time. We have recently had the
Pendleton-Spann IBF lightweight title fight, and the Alfred Cole-
Uriah Grant fight was an IBF cruiserweight title fight.

I would say of our 40 cards a year, somewhere in the neighbor-
hood of 12 to 24 would be title fights sanctioned by either the three
major sanctioning bodies, or the NABF or the USBA. For the most
part, our boxers are established fighters, but we also feature under-
cards where we have younger fighters coming up. For instance, re-
cently on ESPN you've seen Oscar de la Hoya, the Olympic cham-
pion, fight, and you would see other fighters like that fight. At
some point, Oscar de la Hoya might fight for a title and perhaps do

a pay-per-view fight, and ESPN would probably not be involved in
that.

Senator Roth. Does ESPN contract directly with the individual
boxers?

Mr. Aresco. No, we do not, Senator. We contract with Top Rank
and Top Rank takes care of details and deals with the individual
fighters.

Senator Roth. Do you select the boxers? Do you have any veto
power over specific boxers?

Mr. Aresco. Senator, we do not select the boxers per se. We have
input, we can make recommendations, we do have veto power, but
for the most part, we rely on Top Rank's expertise and they set up
the matches.

Senator Roth. Why do you think free TV networks, for all in-
tents and purposes, currently are out of the professional boxing
business?

Mr. Aresco. I think there are several reasons. One is that I be-
lieve the demographics of the boxing viewing audience tend to be
older. In other words, the viewers, as opposed to some sports, tend
to be older and advertisers have less incentive to target those view-
ers. That is just the way the television business works, and I think
that because the networks don't have the affiliate fee revenue
stream, they have to rely heavily on advertising, and I think some
of that has dried up.

I believe also that the image of boxing may be a factor. I don't
know, but certainly the advertising sales situation and the older
demographics, I think, would be key reasons the networks aren't
doing as many fights.

Senator Roth. What impact, if any, will the virtual absence of
free TV have on boxing in general?

Mr. Aresco. I think boxers certainly receive less exposure and
therefore you have fewer household names, and I think that prob-
ably hurts us.

You would think in some ways a lack of broadcast network
boxing would mean that some fighters who used to appear on the
networks would appear on ESPN. To some extent that is true, but
in another sense it isn't true because certain boxers, once they
reach a certain position, want large fees and purses. Therefore, if
the networks weren't going to pay that kind of fee, they would
simply not appear on the networks or ESPN and they might do
HBO or pay-per-view fights. But clearly, exposure for fighters
would be the impact.

Senator Roth. Mr. Aresco, as I indicated earlier, we will keep the
record open temporarily for further questions, for the next 3 days.

But I appreciate your being here and look forward to continuing
this dialogue.

Mr. Aresco. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Roth. Thank you.

Mr. Rinzel. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of exhibits that we
would like to have included in the record at this time. 1

1 The exhibits from the Minority Staff appear on pages 163 thru 266.

Senator Roth. Without objection.

There are plans for additional hearings, at least one more, but
the date is not yet firmed up so that will be determined at a later
date.

The Subcommittee is in recess.

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned, subject
to the call of the Chair.]

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Part II

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1993

U.S. Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room
SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Nunn, Chair-
man of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Nunn, Dorgan, Roth, Cohen, and McCain.

Staff Present: Eleanore J. Hill, Chief Counsel; John F. Sopko,
Deputy Chief Counsel; Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk; David B.
Buckley, Chief Investigator; Harold B. Lippman, Investigator; Cyn-
thia Comstock, Executive Assistant to Chief Counsel; Daniel F.
Rinzel, Minority Chief Counsel; Stephen H. Levin, Mary E.
Michels, and W. Leighton Lord III, Minority Counsel; Scott Or-
chard, Minority Investigator; Sallie B. Cribbs, Minority Executive
Assistant to the Chief Counsel; Carla J. Martin, Minority Assistant
Chief Clerk; Betty Ann Soiefer (Senator Glenn); Jennifer Urff and
Gene Harrington (Senator Dorgan); Tony Sanchez (Senator Bryan);
Dale Cabaniss (Senator Stevens); Matt Frost and Paul Brubaker
(Senator Cohen); Robbie Wilbur and Grant Fox (Senator Cochran);
Mark Buse, Brad Belt and Paul Feeney (Senator McCain).

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR NUNN

Chairman Nunn. The Committee will come to order.

This afternoon, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
returns again to its examination of corruption in professional
boxing.

The Subcommittee's investigation, which was initiated early last
year by ranking minority member Senator Roth, resulted last
August in the first of what has become a continuing series of hear-
ings. The August hearings focused on the role of State regulatory
agencies and sanctioning bodies in protecting the interests of pro-
fessional boxers.

Early last month, the Subcommittee received additional testimo-
ny from a panel of medical experts who outlined their concerns re-
garding a variety of health and safety issues affecting professional
boxers and offered a number of recommendations to address them.
At that time, we also heard from cable television network execu-
tives who described their industry's involvement in professional
boxing, and from Congressman Bill Richardson, a long-time propo-

(69)

nent of the need to establish Federal regulation and oversight of
professional boxing in our country.

In today's hearings, we turn to yet another of the significant
questions facing professional boxing — the role or alleged role of or-
ganized crime therein. We will have a witness first, and then we
will hear from the minority staff, who will present a summary of
their findings in this regard. One-time Gambino organized crime
family underboss, Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano will be our
first witness, and then we'll follow with the minority staff.

As many of you know, Mr. Gravano was the Government's key
witness in the recent trial and conviction of one-time Gambino
crime family boss John Gotti. Reflecting his long experience as a
Gambino crime family member, Mr. Gravano will offer testimony
based on his personal knowledge of the relationship between crimi-
nal elements and professional boxing.

The remaining witnesses to be heard are boxers and those associ-
ated directly or indirectly with them.

As before, I want to commend Senator Roth and his staff for
their hard, diligent and effective work. Allegations of organized
criminal involvement in boxing have long been a concern of those
in Congress worried about the sport's safety and credibility. Indeed,
this very question was foremost among those raised more than 30
years ago by Senator Estes Kefauver, whose investigation of profes-
sional boxing revealed widespread and pervasive involvement on
the part of organized crime individuals and interests at that time.

With this historical record in mind, I look forward to today's tes-
timony. To the extent that it confirms or disproves present orga-
nized criminal activity in professional boxing, it will assist us in
more accurately assessing the sport's integrity, viability and long-
term prospects.

Senator Roth, we appreciate your leadership here and the leader-
ship of your staff, and I'll turn to you for your statement, and then
we will have our first witness.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROTH

Senator Roth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As we resume our inquiry into corruption in professional boxing,
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your cooperation during
the course of this investigation and to thank your staff for their
support.

More than 30 years ago, after the last Senate hearings on profes-
sional boxing, Senator Kefauver stated, and I quote: "Professional
boxing has had too many connections with the underworld."

What is the current state of underworld connections with
boxing? In our hearings last August, we heard testimony, support-
ed by FBI surveillance tapes, that four organized crime families
were involved in arranging a single meeting in 1983 between un-
dercover agents, organized crime figures, and one of boxing's lead-
ing promoters. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss doing a
boxing promotion to launder drug money.

And what about today? I would like to be able to say that profes-
sional boxing has cleaned up its act, and organized crime is no
longer among the sport's many problems. But as we will hear

today, this is not what the evidence shows. Instead, the evidence
shows that the tentacles of organized crime still extend into the
boxing ring, squeezing the mob's cut out of boxers. Unfortunately,
State boxing regulators have been, and continue to be, unable to
cut off these tentacles.

Of course, the stakes are higher since there is potentially much
more money to be made in boxing today. Former middleweight
champ Jake LaMotta earned a total of $1 million in his 13-year
boxing career that ended in 1954. Today, it is not unusual for a top-
ranked boxer to make that much in a single fight.

The more money to be made, the more the mob is interested in
boxing. A former captain in the Colombo crime family told us that
during our August hearings. And as we will hear today from an-
other organized crime member, the mob has adapted to the chang-
ing boxing market. Today, the mob is less likely to fix fights and
more likely to seek control of individual boxers, managers and pro-
moters, and thus collect its share from their big paydays. The
boxer may even be an unwitting dupe in the whole scheme. Howev-
er, as with the other problems we have found in boxing, it is the
boxer and the public who lose, whether the boxer knows it or not.

The irony is that while boxing and the mob's methods have
changed, the regulatory system designed to protect the boxers re-
mains basically unchanged from when Senator Kefauver first
found it to be inadequate. Senator Kefauver concluded — and again,
I quote — "Major boxing contests, because of their interstate charac-
ter, are presently beyond the power of any State to regulate fully
and effectively." As a result, while it is called "the sweet science,"
boxing often turns sour for those the system is supposed to protect.

Every day, in gyms throughout this country, in big cities and
small towns, young men spend countless hours training in the hope
of achieving a dream. Unfortunately, we have found that they
often become victims of a system riddled with abuses, a system
that cannot protect their health and safety, a system that cannot
protect them from financial exploitation. The dream often becomes
a nightmare.

I believe this investigation has shown that it is time for all of us
to wake up to the fact that the professional boxing industry is un-
willing and perhaps unable to police itself. We owe it to these
young men to establish a system that works as hard outside the
ring to protect them as they do inside the ring. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to achieve that goal.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leader-
ship and support.

Prepared Statement of Senator Roth

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we resume our inquiry into corruption in profes-
sional boxing, I want to thank you for your cooperation during the course of this
investigation, and I want to thank your staff for their support.

More than 30 years ago, after the last Senate hearings on professional boxing,
Senator Kefauver stated, and I quote, "Professional boxing has had too many con-
nections with the underworld."

What is the current state of underworld connections with boxing? In our hearings
last August, we heard testimony, supported by FBI surveillance tapes, that four or-
ganized crime families were involved in arranging a single meeting in 1983 between
undercover agents, organized crime figures, and one of boxing's leading promoters.

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss doing a boxing promotion to launder
drug money.

And what about today? I would like to be able to say that professional boxing has
cleaned up its act and organized crime is no longer among the sport's many prob-
lems. But, as we will hear today, that is not what the evidence shows. Instead, the
evidence shows that the tentacles of organized crime still extend into the boxing
ring, squeezing the mob's cut out of boxers. Unfortunately, State boxing regulators
have been and continue to be unable to cut off these" tentacles.

Of course, the stakes are higher since there is potentially much more money to be
made in boxing today. Former middleweight champ, Jake LaMotta, earned a total of
$1 million in his 13-year boxing career that ended in 1954. Today, it is not unusual
for a top-ranked boxer to make that much in one fight.

The more money to be made, the more the mob is interested in boxing — a former
captain in the Colombo crime family told us that during our August hearings. As we
will hear today from another organized crime member, the mob has adapted to the
changing boxing market. Today, the mob is less likely to fix fights and more likely
to seek control of individual boxers, managers and promoters, and thus collect its
share from their big paydays. The boxer may even be an unwitting dupe in the
whole scheme. However, as with the other problems we have found in boxing, it is
the boxer and the public who lose — whether the boxer knows it or not.

The irony is that, while boxing and the mob's methods have changed, the regula-
tory system designed to protect the boxers remains basically unchanged from when
Senator Kefauver first found it to be inadequate. Senator Kefauver concluded, and
again, I quote, "Major boxing contests, because of their interstate character, are
presently beyond the power of any State to regulate fully and effectively." As a
result, while it is called the "Sweet Science," boxing often turns sour for those the
system is supposed to protect.

Every day in gyms throughout this country, in big cities and in small towns,
young men spend countless hours training in the hope of achieving a dream. Unfor-
tunately, we have found that they often become victims of a system riddled with
abuses — a system that cannot protect their health and safety, a system that cannot
protect them from financial exploitation. The dream often becomes a nightmare. I
believe this investigation has shown that it is time for all of us to wake up to the
fact that the professional boxing industry is unwilling and perhaps unable to police
itself. We owe it to these young men to establish a system that works as hard out-
side the ring to protect them as they do inside the ring. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to achieve that goal.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your leadership and support.

Chairman "Nunn. Thank you, Senator Roth.

Senator Cohen or Senator McCain, do either of you have any
opening comments?

Senator Cohen. I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll include my
statement in the record.

Chairman Nunn. Without objection, it will be part of the record.

Prepared Statement of Senator McCain

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Senator Roth for your con-
tinuing efforts to examine the serious problems that exist in professional boxing in
America. Each hearing is unfolding as a new chapter in a story full of greed, corrup-
tion, and vast indifference to the well-being of professional boxers.

Today's hearing on the involvement of organized crime in professional boxing will
present some truly startling and disturbing testimony. Without question, organized
crime continues to play a substantial role in boxing in America, and their corrupt-
ing influence is a compelling reason why reform of the boxing industry at the Fed-
eral level is so necessary.

Organized crime has muscled and threatened its way into professional boxing
since the first gate proceeds ever changed hands. I find it perplexing that in the face
of so much personal testimony and case studies on the mob's connections to various
fighters, managers, and promoters, there hasn't been greater support for stronger
regulations to protect boxers and eliminate the criminal element from the sport.

We have a chance to achieve this worthy goal this year. For anyone who may
wonder why a Federal entity should be created to oversee the boxing industry, they
need only to listen to the testimony that will shortly be presented.

For example:

— The underboss of the Gambino crime family will state that in addition to con-
trolling the construction industry in New York, the family was involved in profes-
sional boxing. Mr. Gravano discussed a $10,000 bribe with a referee to move a fight-
er up in the rankings of the WBC. This convenient step would have assured a big
payday in the future after fixing the outcome of a fight.

— Mr. Gravano will also testify that a former European and WBO champ was af-
filiated with an organized crime family in Italy, and that a recent WBC title-holder
here in the United States is managed by a Gambino family associate.

— Investigators of this Subcommittee will declare that 30 years after the ground-
breaking Kefauver hearings, boxing is still overly corrupt and that ". . . the States
are unable to adequately regulate the business and the sport of boxing." It is inar-
guable, Mr. Chairman, that the industry has failed to properly regulate itself, and
that a patchwork of State commissions has proved insufficient to the task.

We are unfortunately witnessing the continuing degradation of what in essence is
a sport that is a supreme test of a man's strength and courage. I hope that all mem-
bers of the House and Senate, in addition to all the people across America who love
boxing, will heed Mr. Gravano's closing statement that ". . . organized crime is
more and more interested" in getting heavily involved in the boxing industry.

This corrosive undermining of what should be a proud and exhilarating sport has
gone on far too long, Mr. Chairman. Professional boxing should be respected for
challenging a man's athletic power, skills, and endurance — not a seedy arena for the
manipulators who seek glory and fortune by exploiting the toil and sweat of others.

I look forward to our witnesses, and I again want to convey my deep personal in-
terest and considerable concern about boxing in America. I will do everything I can
as a Senator to see that we protect the health and welfare of fighters in the ring,
and that we bring its shadowy financial and advisory arrangement into the light of
responsible public oversight.

Prepared Statement of Senator Dorgan

Mr. Chairman, before I begin I want to thank you for all the time, energy, and
expertise that you have dedicated to this important topic.

At this very moment, thousands of young boxers in this country are vying to par-
ticipate in a sport that is unregulated, unsafe, and too often corrupt. As a member
of the U.S. House of Representatives, I worked for several years to pass legislation
that would make the sport of boxing more safe, more honest and, I believe, more
exciting. I am pleased now to work with Senator Roth, Congressman Richardson,
and others in drafting a new regulatory proposal that we hope to pass and have
signed into law this session.

By this legislation, which would create a Federal Boxing Commission, we hope to
attack the very root of the problems in the boxing industry. The domination of a
very few individuals over the entire sport has prevented boxing from developing
safety and ethical standards to protect the thousands of young boxers struggling to
make a name for themselves.

While we hold this hearing, a boxer named Sergei Artemiev remains in critical
condition in a hospital after collapsing in the 10th round of a March 21st USBA
lightweight title fight in Atlantic City. Earlier this week, Sergei underwent surgery
for a blood clot on the brain. Thankfully, he now reacts to the voice of his wife and,
mercifully, he is still alive. But it is still not known whether he suffered any brain
damage or how much rehabilitation he will need.

At the same time, a New York grand jury is hearing evidence regarding alleged
criminal wrongdoing by boxing promoter Don King. These two events tell me that
something is drastically wrong with the sport of boxing, and we — all of us who enjoy
the sport — have to stop looking the other way.

This year, we have yet another opportunity to force the boxing industry to clean
house. Do I think that if Federal boxing legislation was in place before Sergei's fight
that he wouldn't have received so many blows to the head and collapsed during his
bout? No, I have neither the medical expertise nor the hindsight to say such a
thing. However, I do know that it is just plain common sense not to let two boxers
get into a ring and start fighting without any kind of consistent rules or regulation.
I also know that boxing leaders are not capable of cleaning up the industry by
themselves.

In testimony about corruption in boxing last year, an FBI agent told this Subcom-
mittee of his experiences as an undercover agent helping to arrange a fight at Madi-
son Square Garden. Neither boxer scheduled to fight was licensed in New York.

Both fighters were managed by Don King's stepson, Carl King, and the fight was
promoted by Don King himself. So the terms of the fight, including compensation
for the fighters, were determined by two self-interested parties who had absolute
control over the fight.

This represents to me the crux of the problem in this industry. The industry is
dominated by a few interests and a few personalities who are not concerned about
the safety or well-being of boxers. And it's not the superstars who bear the brunt of
this problem — it's the thousands of young boxers struggling to build a name and a
record who are abused and exploited.

So I think the Chairman for his interest in the commitment to this issue, and I
look forward to continuing to work with Senator Roth and others to find a solution
to these problems.

Chairman Nunn. Before we bring in the first witness, let me get
a couple of things clear. The Capitol Police will ensure that, be-
cause of very high security concern during this particular witness'
testimony, no spectators will be permitted to stand anywhere in
the hearing room. Spectators will be confined to the available seats
in the audience. No spectators will be permitted to enter or leave
the hearing room during the witness' testimony, and that includes
cameras and equipment. Also, no still photographers will be per-
mitted in the well in front of the witness table during the testimo-
ny of the witness.

We appreciate everyone's understanding and cooperation in that
regard. These are security measures that are essential, based on
the best information we have.

When everything has been secured, and I'll leave that up to our
law enforcement people here, then they can bring the witness in.

[Pause.]

Senator Roth. Mr. Gravano, if you would remain standing,
please.

Our first witness is Salvatore Gravano. Mr. Gravano is currently
in Federal custody and cooperating with the Government while
awaiting sentencing. Mr. Gravano has testified as a Government
witness in several major trials and will be testifying in additional
upcoming cases.

Given the sensitive nature of Mr. Gravano's position as a cooper-
ating witness, we have agreed to limit his testimony to matters re-
lating to professional boxing. We appreciate the cooperation of all
Subcommittee members in abiding by this understanding.

Chairman Nunn. Mr. Gravano, we swear in all the witnesses
before this Subcommittee, so if you will hold up your right hand,
I'll give you the oath. Do you swear the testimony you give before
this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Gravano. I do.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you. You may be seated.

Mr. Gravano, do you have an attorney with you today?

Mr. Gleeson. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Gleeson, and I am
an Assistant United States Attorney in Brooklyn, New York, chief
of the Organized Crime Section, and I am supervising the criminal
investigations in which Mr. Gravano is participating. I have
worked with the staff of the Subcommittee in facilitating his ap-
pearance here today. He is represented by counsel; obviously, it is
not me.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you. We appreciate your cooperation.

Senator Roth.

Senator Roth. Mr. Gravano, would you please proceed with your
testimony?

TESTIMONY OF SALVATORE "SAMMY THE BULL" GRAVANO, 1
FORMER UNDERBOSS, GAMBINO ORGANIZED CRIME FAMILY;
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN GLEESON, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK

Mr. Gravano. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nunn. Mr. Gravano, if you'll pull that microphone
right up and talk directly into it. Take your time, and just talk
right into the mike.

Mr. Gravano. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Salvatore Gravano. Early in my
life, I was given the nickname, "Sammy the Bull."

I have been in jail since December of 1990, when I was arrested
with John Gotti. I was his underboss and second-in-command of the
Gambino family.

I have been involved with organized crime since 1968, when I
became associated with a guy named Shorty Spero of the Colombo
family. I committed many types of crimes when I was with Shorty,
including my first murder. In 1972, I was officially released from
the Colombo family to the Gambino family. I became a "made"
member of the Gambino family in 1976. At that time, Paul Castel-
lano was the boss of the Gambino family.

In December of 1985, John Gotti and I, along with some others,
murdered Paul Castellano. We then took over the family. John
Gotti became the boss. A couple of weeks later, I became a captain.
In 1987, I became acting consigliere of our family. I later became
the official consigliere. Then, in January of 1990, I accepted the po-
sition of official underboss, which I held until I began to cooperate
with the Government in 1991.

I decided to cooperate before we — meaning me, John Gotti, and
our acting consigliere, Frank Locascio — went to trial. I testified at
that trial and some others. I will be testifying at more trials in the
near future.

As part of my deal with the Government, I pleaded guilty to a
charge that has a 20-year maximum sentence rather than the life
sentence that I was facing if convicted at trial. As part of my coop-
eration, I told the Government about my life of crime, including
the fact that I participated in 19 murders.

As a member of our family's administration, I helped John Gotti
run the family. My primary responsibility was controlling the con-
struction industry in New York. I did this by working with union
officials and companies that were owned or controlled by our
family, and by dealing with other families which also controlled
certain unions and companies.

I have been asked to testify here today about the mob's involve-
ment in professional boxing. I don't know much about what other
families have been doing in boxing, but I do know about our
family.

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Gravano appears on page 156.

The Gambino family had basically gotten out of boxing sometime
around or before 1960. We were involved in other things that made
more money. But I have always had an interest in boxing. I boxed
a little when I was in the Army, and I picked it up again a few
years before I was arrested. I would go to Gleason's Gym in Brook-
lyn every week and work out. Sometimes, I would go a few rounds
with other people who trained there. I often attended fights in New
York and New Jersey, including the Mike Tyson-Larry Holmes
fight in 1988 in Atlantic City, which I attended with John Gotti.

I got to know a heavyweight named Renaldo Snipes and his man-
ager, who I knew as Sal. I tried to set up a fight between Snipes
and Francesco Damiani, who was the undefeated European and
WBO heavyweight champ. Damiani was with an organized crime
family in Italy. Since our family had close ties with the Italian
family, I was able to set up a meeting with Damiani's people. They
came to New York, and we discussed the possibility of a fight with
Snipes. At that time, Damiani was already scheduled to fight Ray
Mercer.

One of the things I did to try to arrange a Damiani-Snipes fight
was to reach out to set up a meeting with the guy who was in
charge of boxing for Donald Trump. I believe his name was Mark
Etess. Snipes, his manager Sal, and I met with this Mark in Atlan-
tic City. He told us that a fight between Damiani and Snipes would
sell. Mark thought it would be even bigger if Snipes had a high
ranking with one of boxing's sanctioning bodies.

Joe Watts, who is an associate in our family, told me that he had
someone in Las Vegas who could help us get a ranking for Snipes.
Watts arranged a meeting for me with Joey Curtis, a boxing refer-
ee in Las Vegas. Joey Curtis had once visited our club, the Raven-
ite Social Club, in New York City.

So I went to Las Vegas with two of my friends and our wives.
After we had dinner with Curtis, I took him aside and asked him if
he could get Snipes moved up in the rankings. Curtis said he could
move Snipes up in the rankings of the World Boxing Council,
which is based in Mexico. Curtis said that this would cost $10,000,
but because it was a favor for John Gotti, he might be able to get it
done for about $5,000.

My idea all along was to use the Damiani-Snipes fight as a set-up
fight to get Damiani a big payday against Mike Tyson. My plan
was for Snipes to have a high ranking and then make it look good,
but lose to Damiani. I never discussed this with Snipes, because Da-
miani lost to Mercer, which put Damiani out of the picture for a
major fight. I am sure that we would have had no problem in con-
vincing Snipes to lose.

Another boxer our family has an interest in is Buddy McGirt,
who recently lost the WBC welterweight title. His manager is Al
Certo, who is a Gambino family associate. Al Certo is with "Jo Jo"
Corozzo, who is a "made" member of our family.

I know Al Certo is with our family because JoJo put it on record
with his captain, Peter Gotti. Also, a beef came up between our
family and the Bufalino family about who McGirt was with. Eddie
Sciandra, the consigliere of the Bufalino family, complained to
John Gotti that the Bufalinos had a piece of McGirt. Gotti told me
to arrange a meeting with Sciandra and JoJo to resolve the beef. I

actually had several meetings with JoJo and Sciandra about this.
JoJo said that he had paid Sciandra some money to walk away
from McGirt, but now Sciandra wanted back in because McCirt
had done well and was getting bigger purses. After hearing both of
them, I recommended to John Gotti that JoJo was right, and that
McGirt should stay with JoJo and our family.

Eddie Sciandra was not satisfied with my decision and kept
coming back for more meetings. I got tired of meeting with Scian-
dra about this, but out of respect for his position and age, we had
Frank Locascio, who was part of our administration, continue to
talk to him. But our position never changed. Certo and McGirt
stayed with our family.

I should point out that the person who was with us was really Al
Certo. His relationship with JoJo Corozzo is how we had a piece of
McGirt. McGirt is a fighter, and although Certo brought him by
the club once to introduce him to some people, it really wouldn't be
fair for me to say that he is an associate of organized crime. But
Certo was with us, and that gave us our interest in McGirt.

Our family was not the only family involved in boxing. Although
I do not know the details, I know that several other families are
involved in boxing in some way. But you should know that our in-
volvement in boxing has changed from the way it used to be. A lot
of people think that organized crime makes money by fixing fights
and betting on the winner. That really doesn't happen anymore.
The purses have gotten so big that it doesn't make sense to fix a
fight in order to collect a bet. While we would consider fixing a
fight in order to set up for a big payday fight — like I had in mind
for Damiani — the money is in the purses, not in betting. Besides,
boxing is a risky business for bookmakers — you couldn't bet big
money on a fight even if you wanted to.

So the interest today is in getting a piece of a successful boxer.
Until a boxer reaches a certain level, there is not much money to
be made because the purses are small. But once a boxer becomes
successful, the family that has him can profit from that success.
Now, because the size of the purses have gotten so big over the past
20 years, organized crime is more and more interested in getting
back into it.

I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have
about organized crime and boxing.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Gravano. I'll ask you just a
few questions and then turn to Senator Roth and my colleagues.

You state here that, quote, "you couldn't bet big money on a
fight even if you wanted to." What do you call "big money"?

Mr. Gravano. I would imagine anywhere from $40,000 to $50,000
and up.

Chairman Nunn. You can't place bets any larger than $30,000 or
$40,000 on a fight today, then?

Mr. Gravano. Not with bookmakers in the street, no; they prob-
ably wouldn't take that kind of action.

Chairman Nunn. And has that changed over the years? Could
you bet big money in the past and can't now?

Mr. Gravano. Yes. Years ago, the purses were rather small, and
they would filter out the betting, and they were more likely to get
the betting years ago than they are today.

Chairman Nunn. Why is it that bookmakers won't take big bets
on fights today? Do they worry about the fights being fixed, or
what are they worrying about?

Mr. Gravano. I would imagine they worry about fights being
one-sided. I don't know as far as being fixed, but some of the fights
are total mismatches, and they really wouldn't want to get in-
volved in the action of it.

Chairman Nunn. And there is no way to establish odds, is that
right, when you've got a mismatch?

Mr. Gravano. Well, they do, but they won't take big money.
They will take small money, $1,000, $2,000, maybe $5,000, maybe
even $10,000 if you find a fairly large bookmaking operation. But I
really don't believe that they would go overboard with bets on

Chairman Nunn. When did that change — what time period — and
what caused it to change? There have always been one-sided fights,
have there not?

Mr. Gravano. But I would imagine that when organized crime
walked away from the boxing industry, I believe our betting slowed
down. I believe the whole thing stopped in that area.

Chairman Nunn. When did organized crime walk away from the
boxing industry?

Mr. Gravano. In the time when Rocky Marciano and people like
that were involved, our people — meaning mob people — were in-
volved, and we had closer ties to boxing, and I would imagine there
was a lot more betting and a lot more situations.

Bookmaking and bookmakers I think became a little more so-
phisticated. There are even some tracks, horse betting races, and
some tracks that they would stay away from and they wouldn't
take action on. There were also some games that they wouldn't
take action on. They might take action on if you wanted to call a
knockout, which round, or something like that, which would make
the bet very, very hard and complicated.

Chairman Nunn. And what were the ventures that were so prof-
itable that organized crime basically decided to walk away from
boxing after the Marciano era? What things shifted in organized
crime then? Was that when organized crime started getting into
narcotics? What were the things that were so lucrative that orga-
nized crime lost interest in boxing?

Mr. Gravano. I believe at that time, organized crime became
more sophisticated. We got into unions, construction, shipping, gar-
ment, garbage, and they became a lot more lucrative than the
boxing industry. Purses were very, very small.

Chairman Nunn. Would that have been in the 1950 time frame,
1950's, 1960's?

Mr. Gravano. Fifties, sixties, yes. That's why I said in the sixties
and before.

Chairman Nunn. When did organized crime get back into
boxing?

Mr. Gravano. Well, over a period of time recently, we have had
an interest. Again, talking about my own family, going down to
Gleason's Gym, I met some fighters and tried to put something to-
gether. I had conversation with John Gotti and myself, and John
had urged me to see if we could reach out and put together some

possible gyms or promoters or fights and see if we could get back
involved in the boxing industry.

In that period, I found out that we would be able to reach certain
people who are rather successful in the boxing industry, and I felt
that given enough time, we would be able to go back into it.

Chairman Nunn. And during what time frame was that when
you had these discussions with John Gotti?

Mr. Gravano. This was a while, maybe a year, maybe a little bit
more, before I was arrested and stopped — maybe even a little bit
before that.

Chairman Nunn. So it has been in the last 5 years, then?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Chairman Nunn. What kind of payoff did you expect and antici-
pate from getting back involved? You were going to get a certain
percentage of the purses; is that how you were going to get paid?

Mr. Gravano. Well, there's a lot of different benefits from it. At
one point, I myself negotiated to buy Gleason's Gym in Brooklyn,
because it had a name and a reputation. We would probably start
off with getting a gym; we would have some trainers, like an Al
Certo bring McGirt or other people, to train there. If the purses
became very big and lucrative, like when you get into the bracket
of half a million and better, we would be able to chew up some of
the money within the gym through training expenses, not only just
a direct kickback, but through training expenses, by putting people
to work at that particular point in his corner, for promotional — for
many, many reasons. And then, we also felt that some of the fight-
ers would have been good, aside from just the money, when some of
our people were in trouble and had trials, that we would be able to
bring some of them down at the trial to lend support to the people
who were on trial so that some of the juries would be impressed by
people who were there and maybe sway some of the juries.

There were a lot of different reasons why we thought it would be
good — contacts, connections with Trump, Steve Wynn, or anybody
in that capacity. Our eyes wouldn't stop strictly at boxing once we
got into the circle.

Chairman Nunn. So you wanted to use this for a broader and
more pervasive influence, then?

Mr. Gravano. Well, we wouldn't stop strictly at boxing. If I was
able to start it, we would probably put a captain in our family in
charge of that boxing industry, and once we had a foothold in it,
yes, we would have branched off in as many areas as we could
have.

Chairman Nunn. I understand that both Buddy McGirt and
Snipes attended parts of John Gotti's trial. Do you know whether
they were asked to do so, and if so, who would have asked them?

Mr. Gravano. Well, again, in McGirt's case, it would have been
Al Certo; it would have been John Gotti, to reach JoJo Corozzo,
who would have asked Al Certo to bring McGirt down to the trial,
that it would look good.

As far as Renaldo Snipes, he was close to me; I don't really know
who asked him at that particular point.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you very much.

Senator Roth.

Senator Roth. In answer to a question of the Chairman, you
stated that there were certain people in boxing who you thought
you could reach, and that's one of the reasons why you went back
into boxing. Who were those people that you thought you could
reach?

Mr. Gravano. Well, in some of our conversations, when we tried
to set up the fight with Renaldo Snipes and Damiani, to reach
Donald Trump, we reached an entertainer whose name is Jimmy
Rozelli, and Jimmy Rozelli has a brother-in-law who is a heavy-
weight gambler and gambles in Atlantic City, and we used that re-
source to get to Donald Trump. We know that Lou Duva was close
to people in the Genovese family — I really don't know if he is with
these people, but we do know that he has relationships with some
of those people, and we would be able to reach him. Marvin Hagler
was very, very close with the Petrocelli brothers — we believed that
one of them might even be a "made" member of one of the New
England families — but they were his trainers, and we would be
able to reach them.

At one point, we reached out for Don King, who gave us a mes-
sage back that he had problems with the Government and prob-
lems with taxes, and he didn't think it was the right time to meet.
And we reached Raymond Patriarca, from a New England family,
who would reach a Cleveland family. They had access to Don King,
it seemed like, some control over Don King, and they would ex-
plain to him at the next request to meet him, for John Gotti and
myself, that it would be in his best interest that he would meet
with us.

We knew that Nicki Scarfo had some interest in some fighters,
and other families around the country. There is a guy named
Andrew Russo, who is a captain in the Colombo family, who has
some sort of tie to Vito Antuofermo.

So knowing this base knowledge, we felt that if we went back in,
some of these places, there are areas that we could have gotten
into. When I met with Joey Curtis in Las Vegas, he told me that he
knew Steve Wynn personally, and he asked me if the Renaldo
Snipes-Damiani fight would come off; maybe we could even talk
with Steve Wynn.

So I did realize that we were able to reach different areas and
different people.

Senator Roth. You have used the terms, "with," "reach,"
"made." Can you explain exactly what you mean by those terms?
When you testify about being "with" a particular organized crime
family, what does that mean, generally and specifically? Let me
ask you that first.

Mr. Gravano. Well, when you are "with" an organized crime
family or a "made" member in a family, the "made" member goes
to his captain and puts you on record that you are "with" him and
our family. His benefits — whatever connections, like I have just
mentioned, we have, he can have. If any other family within the
country, or out of the country for that matter, would ever try and
move in on him, muscle in on him, it couldn't happen. He was al-
ready on record as being "with" us. And he would be under our
protection, our umbrella, so to speak.

Senator Roth. But he wouldn't be "made"?

Mr. Gravano. No. A "made" member is another stage when a
man, after a period of years, is with somebody and is brought into
a meeting and is given the oath and becomes a "made" member.

Senator Roth. He is a full member, in other words.

Mr. Gravano. He is a blood member.

Senator Roth. A blood member.

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Roth. And what do you mean by the word, "reach"?

Mr. Gravano. Well, if we don't know Donald Trump himself, we
have ways to reach him. It's just a term I'm using. In other words,
we would use Jimmy Roselli or Jimmy Roselli's brother-in-law, or
Bobby Sasso, who controls 282 union in New York. Donald Trump
obviously does a lot of construction, and if Bobby Sasso, the presi-
dent of 282, the Teamsters, who was with our family, would reach
Donald Trump and tell him that we were interested in a meeting
with him — when I say "we," I don't mean me or John Gotti — I
don't know if Trump would meet us — but it would open the door
for a meeting with Snipes' manager or Damiani's manager or
whomever we put in front of this thing to make it look legitimate.
After a while, myself and John Gotti and people like us would
probably take a back seat to somebody who is a little bit cleaner.

Senator Roth. Now, you said you know that McGirt is with the
Gambino family because Corozzo put it on the record with Peter
Gotti. What does it mean to put something "on record"?

Mr. Gravano. Well, when a man is a "made" member, he goes
to his captain, which is his supervisor right above him, he goes to
him and puts it on record with him on what he is doing, what busi-
nesses he has, who he has with him. This goes on record with his
captain. His captain will bring it up to the administration. So ulti-
mately, the boss has a good idea what the family has in many dif-
ferent industries, what contacts who has within the family. So that
if I wanted to get into boxing or if we wanted to get into boxing, we
would know immediately that we can call for Pete Gotti to send for
JoJo; we know we would be able to get Al Certo and Buddy McGirt
through that avenue.

If a different captain — let's assume; I'm just using this as an ex-
ample — was close with Lou Duva, we would reach that captain to
reach Lou Duva. But ultimately, the boss and the administration
would know who has what; it's just a matter of putting it — that's
what we mean by putting it on record.

Senator Roth. You mentioned Peter Gotti. Who is he?

Mr. Gravano. Peter Gotti is John Gotti's brother, but more im-
portantly, he is a captain within our family.

Senator Roth. Now, is it possible that Buddy McGirt did not
know that part of his earnings were going to organized crime?

Mr. Gravano. It is very possible, Senator.

Senator Roth. Very possible.

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Roth. You testified that several meetings were held to
settle a dispute between the Gambino and Bufalino families con-
cerning who owned parts of boxer Buddy McGirt's contract. I'd like
you to watch an FBI surveillance videotape from November 15,
1989 and identify, if you can, the three individuals shown on this
tape. You'll have to look at this screen here.

[Videotape shown. 1 ]

Mr. Gravano. Do you want me to answer, Senator, who's who?

Senator Roth. Yes, if you would, please.

Mr. Gravano. The one in the middle, I believe, could be Eddie
Sciandra. The one on the right is me, and the one on the left is
JoJo Corozzo.

Senator Roth. Now, these are the individuals who were involved
in the dispute concerning who owned part of McGirt's contract; is
that correct?

Mr. Gravano. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Do you recognize the location shown by this video-
tape?

Mr. Gravano. That's Mulberry Street in Manhattan. It is the
Ravenite Club, which is the headquarters for the Gambino family,
one of the headquarters for the Gambino family.

Senator Roth. Why were you out walking, rather than inside of
the club, discussing the matter?

Mr. Gravano. Because we believed that the FBI had electronic
surveillance in a lot of different areas, so when we talked, we usu-
ally took what we called a "walk talk," where we didn't believe it
would be picked up by electronic surveillance — or cameras, for that
matter.

Senator Roth. Was this one of the meetings concerning which or-
ganized crime family owned a piece of McGirt's contract?

Mr. Gravano. Yes, it was.

Senator Roth. How do you know that this particular videotape
depicts one of the McGirt meetings?

Mr. Gravano. I have never met with Eddie Sciandra about any-
thing other than McGirt before or after.

Senator Roth. So that was the only meeting you had with Scian-
dra?

Mr. Gravano. The only meetings I had with him pertained to Al
Certo and McGirt.

Senator Roth. Did John Gotti tell you why he decided that
McGirt belonged to the Gambino organized crime family?

Mr. Gravano. He believed he belonged to our family on my deci-
sion by overhearing JoJo Corozzo and Eddie Sciandra, hearing the
story, I advised him that he belonged with our family, and that's
how he based his decision.

Senator Roth. In other words, John told you that JoJo paid
Eddie to walk away from McGirt?

Mr. Gravano. No. In meeting, JoJo Corozzo had told me that he
had paid — at one time earlier, Eddie Sciandra was involved with
Buddy McGirt, they both were involved — and at one point, they
weren't getting along, and JoJo Corozzo paid I believe it was $5,000
for Eddie Sciandra to walk away. They weren't getting along, and
Eddie Sciandra seemed to be happy to take the $5,000 and walk
away.

A time after that, he seemed to be doing very, very well in
boxing, his status was building, the purses were building, and he

1 The videotape referred to was marked Exhibit No. 7 and can be found in the files of the
Subcommittee. Still photographs, from videotape, of Salvatore Gravano, Edward Sciandra and
Joseph Corozzo were marked Exhibit No. 8 and can be found on page 167.

seemed to come back into play and wanted to be involved. He ad-
mitted that he did take money, but he said that he took the money
from old moneys that were due. JoJo showed the purses that he
fought for, and there really, really was no money involved, and
there is no way he could have paid $5,000 or better for backup
money which came to hundreds. And I believed JoJo was telling
the truth, and this is what I told John.

Senator Roth. You stated in your opening testimony that you
were released by the Colombo family to the Gambino family. What
did you mean by that?

Mr. Gravano. Well, in that time, I wasn't a "made" member. I
was on record. I was on record; I was an associate of the Colombo
family. I wasn't a "made" member. And I was put on record with
their family. Once you are on record, you belong to that family,
and it takes an official release from that family for you to leave.

Senator Roth. Thank you. My time is up.

Chairman Nunn. Senator McCain.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Gravano, for your testimony. It is very interest-
ing.

In part of your testimony, you talked about a referee named Joey
Curtis who could move Snipes up in the World Boxing Council
rankings.

Mr. Gravano. Yes, sir.

Senator McCain. And that's the outfit that is headed by Mr. Jose
Sulaiman, I believe?

Mr. Gravano. I really don't know who heads that organization.

Senator McCain. You are a fight fan, though, aren't you?

Mr. Gravano. Yes, I am.

Senator McCain. And have you noticed in the past on other occa-
sions that someone is moved up in the WBC rankings in time for a
fight, and then that person disappears or drops way down again;
have you seen that happen before?

Mr. Gravano. Well, it's common knowledge. I'm not surprised by
it. I don't really follow that part of it, but it is basically common
knowledge that it can be done. I wasn't sure at that point which
sanctioning body did it, because I really wasn't involved. Joey
Curtis made me aware of this sanctioning body. I don't really know
if any other sanctioning body does it or not.

Senator McCain. But it was common knowledge that it could be
done?

Mr. Gravano. Yes; it's not something that is a major secret.

Senator McCain. You mentioned two names, Vito Antuofermo
and Marvin Hagler, as both having mob ties, or perhaps their
people having some connection; is that correct?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator McCain. And they both fought a couple of fights; that
might have been interesting. Could I ask you a couple of other
names — Emanual Steward, any connection there?

Mr. Gravano. I know the name, but I don't know of any connec-
tion with him.

Senator McCain. Mr. Duva?

Mr. Gravano. Mr. Lou Duva, I understood to be with or close
with, anyway, people in the Genovese family. If we were going to

go back into boxing, we would be able to reach people in the Geno-
vese family; we would probably reach their boss, who was Chin,
and find out what could be done. But we never got to that point.

Senator McCain. And Mr. Don King, you mentioned earlier had
been approached but had been negative in response. You have no
other information about his connections?

Mr. Gravano. I know earlier on, a lot of years ago — this is
before John Gotti and myself took over the family — that Don King
had reached out for Paul Castellano, and Paul Castellano didn't
want to meet with him, for whatever reason. So I knew he was
around, I knew he had some ties, and when we were considering
Snipes and Damiani, we were considering a possible conversation
with him for promotional reasons, for obvious reasons — I mean, he
literally just about controls a good part of boxing.

Senator McCain. Which brings me to — the connection with
either Mr. Wynn or Mr. Trump, you know of no direct connection
except that they have to do business with these individuals who
control the majority of the best fighters; is that right?

Mr. Gravano. Right. They have done nothing wrong as far as I
know, and they are not with anybody as far as I know. They are
just in that business, and they would have to deal with people. We
would have to reach the people that they would have to deal with
in order to talk with them.

Senator McCain. Good. I think it is important to make it clear,
Mr. Chairman, about some of these individuals. We don't want to
tar people with a brush here.

You said in your statement that in the case of the Renaldo
Snipes-Damiani fight, you said, "I'm sure that we would have had
no problem in convincing Snipes to lose." Why do you make that
statement, Mr. Gravano?

Mr. Gravano. I myself was very close with Snipes, and he was
broke at that particular point, and if we were able to set up a big
payday fight, I would have told him that there was "x" amount of
dollars in the purse; I probably would have approached him with
some cash under the table. He was shunned by Don King. He was
on the outskirts. He couldn't get any more fights. He was just
about over the hill at 30 some-odd years old. And I believe I had
enough of a relationship with him to convince him that respect.
And if he would have agreed, I'm sure he would have lived up to it.

Senator McCain. At the end of your statement you say, "Now,
because the size of the purses has gotten so big over the past 20
years, organized crime is more and more interested in getting back
into it." Do you have any specifics of that interest?

Mr. Gravano. Well, for a long time, it wasn't even talked about,
and through the years it was becoming more and more talked
about, again, with Lou Duva and names like that within the indus-
try, it popped up.

I wasn't really in the boxing industry. It was more of a hobby to
me, and I heard it on the outskirts. My expertise in the Gambino
family was in construction, and I dealt with that. But as the purses
got bigger and bigger, not only did John Gotti and myself start to
look at it, but I'm sure in conversations that I have had with
people, more and more people were looking at it.

Senator McCain. At these big fights, you'd have the opportunity
to see many friends and adversaries?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Gravano.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you, Senator McCain.

Senator Cohen.

Senator Cohen. Just a couple of follow-up questions. With re-
spect to Mr. Snipes, you have indicated that you were sure that
had Snipes given his word, he would have lived up to it. Is that
right?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Cohen. What deterrent do you have if they don't live up
to it? Let's suppose he got in the ring, he felt pretty good, and sud-
denly, victory is a couple of punches away. Does he take a look out
from the ring and see you out there or maybe John Gotti or some-
body else, and take a fall, even though he smells victory and the
other fighter may have unintentionally walked into a roundhouse
punch? What deterrent exists, either expressly or implicitly, to
make sure someone lives up to an agreement?

Mr. Gravano. I believe our whole background, John Gotti's and
mine, our reputation of what we did and what happened. I believe
if he would have knocked him out by accident, he would have
picked him up. [Laughter.]

Senator Cohen. I tried not to make it appear that was a rhetori-
cal question.

Is it clear in the boxing industry that the boxer — let me put it
this way — have you ever heard of a boxer being threatened with
injury because he was unwilling to give organized crime a cut of
his winnings?

Mr. Gravano. I have never heard that personally. I know that's
talked about not only in boxing, but in a lot of industries, and I
don't find that that really happens all that much. I believe it is a 2-
sided greed. Organized crime, from what I have seen, has a history
of sharing. A lot of contractors — which I relate slightly to the con-
struction industry — came to us for union favors and basically for
greed, because they made more money by coming to us. It wasn't
something that we had to force them over.

And along with this, I happened to like Renaldo Snipes and had
a high respect for him as a fighter, and in a strange way, I think I
would have been fair as far as giving him his last hurrah and some
money, and it also would have met my purpose with Damiani to
look so good and beat somebody as classy a fighter as I believed
Snipes was.

Senator Cohen. You mentioned that McGirt may very well not
know that he is associated with organized crime, even indirectly. Is
that right?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Cohen. That it's very possible. Is it well-known that Mr.
Certo is associated with organized crime?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Cohen. So you can have a fighter who has someone who
is an advisor, manager, or promoter who is known to associate with
organized crime, and you basically are being handled by that

person, and yet you would not know that any of your earnings are
going through the money tree to the roots of organized crime?

Mr. Gravano. Sure, yes.

Senator Cohen. Tell me how that works. You indicated that
McGirt went to the trial of John Gotti?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Cohen. When someone goes to a trial of someone who is
known to be a top person in an organized crime family, does that
imply knowledge that one's earnings are in any way going in that
direction? In other words, you've got a manager

Mr. Gravano. No, but it's a tactic of ours, Senator — I'm sorry,
did I interrupt you?

Senator Cohen. No, that's all right.

Mr. Gravano. It's a tactic of ours. I believe there was a "made"
member, Johnny DiGilio, who was in the Genovese family, who
was on trial, a Federal trial, I believe, in New Jersey, where Mu-
hammad Ali and a few people came to the trial. And what I believe
it does is that if you have black jurors, and you see a Sugar Ray
Leonard or a Muhammad Ali or a Joe Frazier, you have a warm
spot for these people, which is basically

Senator Cohen. Right. I understand the tactic, but I was wonder-
ing about the fighter himself when Al Certo or somebody says,
"We'd like to have you go to the trial of John Gotti."

Mr. Gravano. Well, I'm sure Al Certo knows the motive. I don't
really know if Buddy McGirt understands or knows the motive. I
say that because I'm not in those conversations. I don't know what
Al Certo tells him. He could be conning him and saying, "You
know, he thinks the world of you as a fighter. Why don't you come
down and see him?" I don't know exactly what

Senator Cohen. That's fair enough. I'm just trying to find out
how the money flows. Perhaps you could trace for us what happens
when a fighter earns the purse, and then the manager or promoter
gets a piece of that. How does the money go through the family?
Trace the money for us, if you would.

Mr. Gravano. Well, it would go through the trainer or manager,
trainer-manager. He has a percentage of the fighter. He would get
a percentage of that. One of the ways — there are a few ways —
would be that when he gets his check and he cashes it, he sends his
piece up, whatever his deal may be — 20, 30, 40, or 50 percent,
whether he is partners with John Gotti — whatever his specific deal
is, he'll send his end of the cash up after taxes, because he obvious-
ly can't duck that.

But there are other ways where we could cheat or duck, if I
could use those terms. We would set up a gym, and if we were talk-
ing about real big money, then we could talk padding training ex-
penses, we could put people to work, we could go into promotional.
We can go into a lot of areas to absorb part of that big purse; espe-
cially when you are talking about purses that go into the tens of
millions of dollars, we would really be able to — I don't know the
word — we would really be able to lunge into that.

Senator Cohen. What happens when a fighter finds out that in
some way, his earnings are going into organized crime, and he
wants to break away from that family? Does the family seek to pre-
vent that from taking place?

Mr. Gravano. Well, traditionally, we have given people a hard
time with that situation, Senator. We aren't too fond of them walk-
ing away from us.

Senator Cohen. I'm sorry?

Mr. Gravano. We aren't too fond of them walking away, and we
would traditionally give them a hard time. I don't know how far —
that would be up to each person and each particular crime family
what they would do.

Senator Cohen. So, once organized crime has an interest in a
fighter, even though that fighter may not know that he is owned or
at least influenced by organized crime, he can't walk away?

Mr. Gravano. Well, I wouldn't say that. If his manager was with
us, he couldn't walk away. If the fighter really knew nothing, I
don't really know how we can go after him, except that he would
lose his power base and connections, and we would try and cut him
off that way. If he himself shook our hand and made a deal with
us, it would be a lot harder for him to walk away.

Senator Cohen. So if he didn't know he was in any way associat-
ed, you might try to perhaps reduce his ratings or rankings?

Mr. Gravano. We would use whatever tactics we could use short
of violence, because he really doesn't know what he is involved
with. If he knew what he was involved with, we would use just
about any tactic, including violence.

Senator Cohen. Last year, the Subcommittee had testimony al-
leging that Bob Lee, who was then the New Jersey Deputy Boxing
Commissioner, had taken a bribe in order to expedite an applica-
tion for a boxing promoter's license. Are you aware of any other
instance in which there is corruption among the boxing commis-
sions in New Jersey, New York, or anywhere in this country? You
talked about the WBC operating out of Mexico and trying to influ-
ence the rankings there. What about here in the United States?

Mr. Gravano. No, I don't know any situations like that, Senator.

Senator Cohen. And one final question. If you were still a
member of the Gambino family, could you tell us what action by
Federal or State agencies it would take to convince you that it was
time to move away from participating in boxing matches? In other
words, is there anything that the Federal Government could do to
discourage organized crime from its association with boxing?

Mr. Gravano. Make the purses very small. [Laughter.]

Senator Cohen. Make the purses small. No amount of Federal
regulation per se is going to deter the influence as long as the
money is there?

Mr. Gravano. I don't believe so, Senator, no.

Senator Cohen. Thank you.

That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you, Senator Cohen.

Senator Roth, do you have any other questions?

Senator Roth. Yes, I do have a few more.

Carrying on with the question of Mr. Cohen, have the State com-
missions been effective in regulating boxing insofar as the mob is
concerned?

Mr. Gravano. I don't even think we know that they exist, to be
honest with you; they aren't that effective, because they don't
bother us, and they don't hinder us in any of our movements, and I

have never heard them involved in any of the conversations that
we would have to do this, this, or this to go around them. So I
really don't — I don't even know what they do, basically.

Senator Roth. If the Federal Government by one means or an-
other became involved in regulation of professional boxing, would
that make a difference? Would the mob be more circumspect, more
concerned about being involved in boxing?

Mr. Gravano. No.

Senator Roth. It would make no difference at all?

Mr. Gravano. No.

Senator Roth. You testified that Joey Curtis told you he could
move up your boxer's ranking in the WBC for $5,000 to $10,000.
Joey Curtis has categorically denied to staff that anything like that
ever happened. Are you certain of your testimony?

Mr. Gravano. Senator, I can only say what I know. I can't really
comment on what they say and what they don't say. I can only
comment that what I say is the truth, and I only say exactly what
I know.

Senator Roth. And that was that Joey Curtis told you he could
move up your boxer's ranking in the WBC for $5,000 to $10,000; is
that correct?

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Roth. Do you recall Joey Curtis visiting the Ravenite
Social Club?

Mr. Gravano. Yes, I do.

Senator Roth. Mr. Curtis admits visiting the social club, but says
it is open to any member of the public. Is that correct?

Mr. Gravano. No. It's a private club. It's the Gambino headquar-
ters. If you want me to explain it slightly, there is a brick wall
with almost no windows, a steel door with, at any given time, 10,
15 guys standing outside, smoking some cigars and stuff. I don't
really think that's a sign that we're open to the public. [Laughter.]

Senator Roth. An attorney for Renaldo Snipes and his former
manager, Sal Pascale, advised that they would invoke the Fifth
Amendment if called to testify here today. They did admit in a
staff interview that they attended a meeting with you in Atlantic
City, in which a future boxing match was discussed, but they
claimed the meeting was set up on the spur of the moment and not
planned in advance. Is this true?

Mr. Gravano. I don't believe, Senator, that you can walk into
Donald Trump's boxing staff unannounced and have a meeting
that you were going to fight a championship fight. It would have to
be something that was set up. I didn't know Mark Etess from a
hole in the wall prior to that, and I don't see how that could be
done. And I'm sure that Mark Etess — who I don't believe did any-
thing wrong — knows of the meeting and knows it was set up. I
mean, I just didn't walk in off the street.

Senator Roth. Are other Gambino family members involved in
boxing gyms?

Mr. Gravano. Excuse me, Senator?

Senator Roth. Are other members of the Gambino family in-
volved in boxing gyms? What about John Gotti, Jr.?

Mr. Gravano. Well, there's a gym that we're involved with that
Tommy Gallagher has. He was a long-time friend of John Gotti. I

believe now he has a gym in Queens and is very, very close or with
John, Jr. And I believe his gym is right next to or right around the
Bergen Hunt and Fish Club in Queens. I believe he looked for some
funding and some backing and found it.

Senator Roth. My last question is this. Some people might ask
what difference does it make if organized crime owns a piece of a
boxer. But isn't it true that organized crime, even when involved in
a legitimate business, tries to take advantage, cut corners? Does it
make a difference if the mob owns a piece of a boxer?

Mr. Gravano. Well, again, we do have that habit of cheating a
little bit. And if we have this, we use it as contacts in not only
boxing, but a lot of other areas that we look at. We look past just
strictly the boxing. Whether it be officials of State, or a person like
Trump, the conversations might start to drift from boxing into con-
struction, or whatever we felt we could do. If somebody went to
John and said that he wanted to buy a condo in Trump Tower, and
we were talking to him about boxing, I'm sure that a week later or
a month later, the conversation would start to change into buying
that condo or doing the sheetrock in one of the buildings that he's
doing, or the plumbing or the electrical. This is what we have done
in the past in a lot of industries fairly well. We walked away from
the boxing, but again, as it started to build money-wise and power
base-wise, we would get back into it for a host of different reasons.

Senator Roth. Because of the big money now involved in profes-
sional boxing, should we expect more involvement on the part of
organized crime in boxing?

Mr. Gravano. I believe so.

Senator Roth. They'll go where the money is.

Mr. Gravano. Excuse me?

Senator Roth. They'll go where the money is.

Mr. Gravano. Yes.

Senator Roth. That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nunn. Mr. Gravano, one final question. I believe in
your statement, or in answer to one of the earlier questions, you
mentioned that there was someone in Cleveland who had access to
Don King. Could you tell us who that was and what kind of access?

Mr. Gravano. I don't know who the specific person was. When I
said that, I was referring to the Cleveland family. The Cleveland
family has certain ties to Don King, and Raymond Patriarca, who
is the boss in Providence, told us that he knew of this and he could
reach the Cleveland people to tell them to have Don King meet us.

Chairman Nunn. Any other questions, Senator Roth, Senator
Cohen, or Senator McCain?

Senator Roth. No questions.

Senator Cohen. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator McCain. No, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nunn. OK. I think that's all, Mr. Gravano. We appre-
ciate your cooperation with the Subcommittee. You have been very
helpful.

Mr. Gravano. Thank you very much.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you.

We'll have security take Mr. Gravano out, and I'll ask everyone
to remain seated until that occurs.

[Pause.]

65-875 0-93-4

Chairman Nunn. Our next witnesses today will be Staff Counsel
Leighton Lord and Staff Counsel Steve Levin, of the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. They have conducted a very ex-
tensive investigation into professional boxing. This afternoon they
will provide us with more of the results of that investigation.

I'll ask both of you to hold up your right hand before you take
your seat and take the oath. Do you swear the testimony you will
give before the Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Lord. I do.

Mr. Levin. I do.

Chairman Nunn. Thank you.

Senator Roth. Please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF W. LEIGHTON LORD III, MINORITY STAFF COUN-
SEL; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN LEVIN, MINORITY STAFF
COUNSEL, PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE

Mr. Lord. Thank you, Senator.

When the Senate last looked into professional boxing over 30
years ago, it found a nationwide conspiracy between organized
crime and members of the boxing industry to control the major
boxing contracts in the United States.

Boxing greats such as Jake LaMotta testified that they were
forced to cooperate with underworld figures to have the opportuni-
ty to compete for championship titles. The nature of organized
crime involvement in the boxing industry has changed since the
1940's and 1950's. Rather than attempting to profit from complete
control of boxing, as was the case 30 years ago, organized crime
now attempts to profit by controlling individual boxers and manag-
ers or by exercising influence with regard to an individual promot-
er.

Today, members and associates of organized crime also partici-
pate in boxing as managers, advisors and investors. As a result, or-
ganized crime profits from and affects the sport of boxing.

The primary attraction for organized crime is, of course, the
large sums of money that can be made. As Senator Roth stated, a
boxer can make in one event what it took a boxer a lifetime to
earn 30 years ago. In addition, the boxing industry is ideally suited
for infiltration by organized crime because it is ineffectively regu-
lated. State boxing regulators make almost no effort to exclude or-
ganized crime members and associates from participating in
boxing, even where State regulations explicitly prohibit such in-
volvement.

Our investigation has uncovered evidence that a number of orga-
nized crime figures are heavily involved with several well-known
boxers. We do not, however, make the claim that all or even most
boxers are connected with organized crime. Very little investiga-
tion has been done in this area by law enforcement entities.

We have, moreover, found no evidence to indicate that organized
crime currently exerts the type of influence over the sport of
boxing that it did in the 1940's and 1950's. We concentrated our in-
vestigation on three case studies involving the organized crime con-

nections of two former and one current world champion. Each of
these boxers has denied that they are knowingly controlled or in-
fluenced by organized crime. It is unclear whether these boxers are
unwitting dupes or willing participants with organized crime fig-
ures.

These three case studies illustrate three forms of organized crime
involvement in boxing and also represent three examples of how
the current regulatory structure has failed to keep organized crime
out of the boxing industry.

On the far right of the chart, l we have the name of former IBF
super middleweight champion Iran Barkley. Barkley has held the
WBC middleweight title and has had a number of high-profile, big
money fights. Barkley testified at a Subcommittee deposition that
he currently does not have a manager of record, but that he does
have several unlicensed advisors. One of these advisors is Lenny
Minuto. Minuto is classified by several law enforcement agencies
as an associate of the Luchese crime family. There is additional in-
formation that he has had past and possibly current affiliations
with the Gambino and Genovese families.

Minuto is believed to be active in the Giampa crew of the Lu-
chese family at this time. Minuto also has a criminal record, in-
cluding 7 gambling convictions and one conviction for bribing a
public official.

And I'd like to note, Senator, before going any further, that in
listing any person on this chart as having organized crime connec-
tions, we have followed the past PSI practice of requiring corrobo-
rating information from at least two separate law enforcement
agencies, 2 and in the case of Mr. Minuto, we also have an affirma-
tion submitted by Mr. Alfonse D'Arco, the former underboss of the
Luchese family, indicating Mr. Minuto's Luchese connections.

At this time, I would like to offer for introduction a copy of the
D'Arco affirmation. 3

Senator Roth. It will be so admitted, unless there is some objec-
tion.

Mr. Lord. Barkley testified at deposition that Lenny Minuto as-
sists him with contract negotiations and with personal invest-
ments. According to Barkley, Minuto receives 10 percent of Bark-
ley's earnings, which would equal roughly $100,000 for Barkley's
most recent fight against James Toney.

We also have other evidence, however, indicating that Minuto re-
ceived as much as $225,000 from the Toney fight alone.

The Barkley and Minuto relationship is illustrative of how orga-
nized crime figures are involved in the boxing industry as paid, un-
licensed advisors. The practice of calling oneself an "advisor" ap-
pears to be an attempt to avoid State licensure requirements de-
spite the fact that so-called "advisors" often fit statutory defini-
tions of managers. Most States have very broad definitions of a
boxing manager. For example, in New Jersey, a "manager" is de-
fined as "anyone who directly or indirectly directs or administers

1 Exhibit No. 1 appears on page 163.

2 Sealed Exhibit No. 2 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

3 Exhibit No. 31 appears on page 255.

the affairs of a boxer, or anyone who is entitled to 10 percent or
more of a boxer's earnings."

One obvious reason that Lenny Minuto and others like him
might wish to avoid licensure is the fear of being denied a license
and thereby excluded from participating in boxing because of their
criminal records or organized crime associations. That fear, howev-
er, is largely unfounded since State boxing regulators do not as a
rule inquire into the criminal history or background of their licen-
sure applicants.

The boxer represented in the middle of the chart is WBA cruiser-
weight champion Bobby Czyz. Czyz has had a long career, with his
most profitable fights taking place in the last few years. In 1981,
Czyz' father sold the right to Czyz' future boxing earnings to
Andrew Licari and Andrew Dembrowski. Under the agreement,
Licari and Dembrowski were to receive a percentage of Czyz' future
earnings in exchange for $300,000. Initially, Licari and Dembrowski
were to receive 26 percent of Czyz' earnings for 5 years and then 5
percent for an additional 5 years.

The agreement has, however, been modified twice so that Licari
and Dembrowski could continue to receive 26 percent of Czyz'
boxing earnings. Czyz testified at the Subcommittee's August hear-
ing that he voluntarily extended the boxing agreement because
Licari and Dembrowski had not gotten their investment back. The
most recent agreement, which is oral, apparently remains in force
today.

Licari is classified by several law enforcement entities as a Lu-
chese soldier and has been alleged to be part of what was the Ac-
cetturo crew of the Luchese family. He is also identified as such in
the previously mentioned affirmation of former Luchese acting
boss Alfonse D'Arco. Dembrowski is classified as a Luchese associ-
ate.

At a Subcommittee deposition, Licari denied membership in or
involvement with organized crime. Licari did, however, acknowl-
edge personal contact with the alleged members of the Accetturo
crew.

Licari and Dembrowski are not licensed to participate in boxing.
State boxing regulations generally do not require that passive in-
vestors such as Licari and Dembrowski be licensed to participate in
boxing, or that investments such as the one held by Licari and
Dembrowski be recorded or disclosed.

The boxer on the far left of the chart is James "Buddy" McGirt.
McGirt has held two world titles and was recently paid a purse of
$1 million in his unsuccessful defense of his WBC title. McGirt's re-
lationship with organized crime exists on two levels. The first level
is McGirt's management team of Al Certo and Stuart Weiner. Law
enforcement has long considered Certo an associate of the Geno-
vese and Gambino crime families.

Senator Cohen. Mr. Lord, could I interrupt you? We've got a
vote coming up, and I just want to clarify for my own purposes
that when you put a chart up there like that, you are not suggest-
ing that any of the fighters involved know that they are involved
in any way with organized crime. Is that correct?

Mr. Lord. That's right, Senator. We don't take a position on that
whatsoever because we have no evidence of that.

Senator Cohen. All right. And with respect to the second line of
individuals, are you making allegations about any of the individ-
uals involved there, that they are actively involved?

Mr. Lord. Yes, Senator. We have information from at least two
law enforcement agencies, as we require under our internal rules,
that they do in fact have organized crime connections.

Senator Roth [presiding]. I thought I would run and vote if you
could stay, so we can keep it going.

Senator Cohen. Fine. Go ahead.

Mr. Lord. McGirt's relationship with organized crime exists on
two levels. The first level is McGirt's management team of Al
Certo and Stuart Weiner. Law enforcement has long considered
Certo an associate of the Genovese and Gambino crime families.
Weiner is an associate of the Gambino family and has been recent-
ly named in an indictment handed down by the Manhattan District
Attorney's Office as a member of the JoJo Corozzo crew of the
Gambino family.

Certo and Weiner each receive at least the 33 Va percent manag-
ers' cut of McGirt's boxing earnings. Certo and Weiner share vari-
ous management responsibilities, yet only Certo is licensed as a
manager at this time. Weiner has not been licensed to participate
in boxing since 1991 when he was licensed as a second in Nevada.

Although Weiner has avoided licensure, his relationship with
McGirt is not secret. Both McGirt and Certo at Subcommittee depo-
sitions acknowledge that Weiner serves as a co-manager to McGirt.
In addition, Weiner has also received payments due McGirt direct-
ly from McGirt's promoter, Madison Square Garden. Weiner also
has check writing authority on the account of Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., the company that receives all of McGirt's boxing earnings.

Weiner is clearly acting as an unlicensed co-manager in violation
of several different State regulations.

The second level of McGirt's involvement with organized crime is
the secret ownership by Gambino soldier Joseph "Jo Jo" Corozzo of
some percentage of McGirt's earnings. Corozzo's ownership of
McGirt was first revealed to the Subcommittee by Salvatore Gra-
vano, who just testified about the relationship. Subcommittee depo-
sitions of Certo and McGirt revealed that Weiner is a personal
friend of Corozzo and that both Certo and McGirt were introduced
to Corozzo by Weiner. Certo and McGirt both testified under oath
that to their knowledge, Corozzo does not have an ownership inter-
est in McGirt's boxing earnings. JoJo Corozzo invoked the Fifth
Amendment in response to all questions during his Subcommittee
deposition.

Subcommittee staff, with the assistance of the Government Ac-
counting Office, conducted a comprehensive analysis of the finan-
cial records of Alfred Certissimo, Inc., the company controlled by
Certo and Weiner, that holds all of McGirt's earnings. Although we
found no direct evidence of payments being made to Corozzo, we
did find a pattern of very questionable payment practices. 1

The exhibit on my right represents the flow of funds from
McGirt's November 29, 1991 fight against Simon Brown. 2 This ex-

1 Exhibit No. 44 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

2 Exhibit No. 4 appears on page 164.

hibit illustrates how all money due McGirt goes directly to Alfred
Certissimo, Inc. In this case, McGirt's promoter, Madison Square
Garden, wrote checks directly to Alfred Certissimo, Inc., from
McGirt's purse earnings and training expenses.

We also have evidence that Madison Square Garden paid Weiner
$40,000 of the money owed McGirt in cash, but have been unable to
determine if this money has been deposited or how it has been
spent. I'd like to point out that on the chart we list the check
number because we initially thought that the $40,000 was paid by
check because we were given a check showing the $40,000 payment.
We have since discovered that the check was voided, and it was
never negotiated, and the transaction was actually conducted in
cash.

Although Nevada has a regulation requiring that a boxer be paid
directly, McGirt requested that the Nevada commission waive this
regulation so that Alfred Certissimo, Inc., would be paid directly.
Since such regulations are intended to lessen the likelihood that a
boxer will be cheated by his management, this arrangement is
questionable and circumvents the intent of State regulations.

One questionable pattern and practice involves the so-called
"third party endorser" transactions. The exhibit that we are now
putting up illustrates this practice. 1

As the exhibit indicates, Stuart Weiner wrote a check for $3,000
to himself. I am referring to the top check. Then, as the back of the
check indicates, which is right under the check on top, he endorsed
the check with his name and then wrote the third party endorse-
ment of Alfred Certissimo, Inc. Although it looks like the check
was redeposited into Alfred Certissimo, Inc.'s account, the corre-
sponding bank statement does not list a specific $3,000 deposit.
Certo testified at his deposition 2 that such checks are on occasion
converted into cash. Our analysis of Alfred Certissimo, Inc.'s
checks, bank statements and tax records indicate that practically
all third party endorser checks are apparently converted into cash.
Over 10 percent of all checks written on the Alfred Certissimo, Inc.
account for a 3-year period were handled in this manner.

A second questionable pattern involved the practice of writing
two separate checks to the same payee on the same day. This prac-
tice is illustrated by the same exhibit that we have up now. As you
can see, Stuart Weiner wrote two checks to himself on March 31,
1990. Check No. 1289, which is on the top, is for $3,000. Check No.
1291, on the bottom, is for $2,170. The $3,000 check was third party
endorsed, leading us to suspect it was converted into cash, and the
$2,170 check appears to have been deposited in another account.

On eight separate occasions, Stuart Weiner wrote himself two
separate checks for significant amounts of money on the same day.
On one day, Weiner wrote three separate checks to himself.

While this evidence is not conclusive proof of wrongdoing, it
clearly provides a ready method for siphoning off large sums of
money in the form of cash.

In conclusion

1 Exhibit No. 5 appears on page 165.

2 Exhibit No. 12 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

Senator Cohen. How does writing the second one siphon off a
large amount of money in that case? If he writes a check out to
himself and cashes it, and there is a bank record of it, how is that
siphoning off money?

Mr. Lord. Senator, on the bottom, we are assuming that he
might have deposited that into an account, although if it is his
bank, he could have cashed it. We have no idea. I'm saying the top
check, which is a third party endorser check, was likely converted
into cash because in our analysis of all the deposits made into
Alfred Certissimo, Inc., up against their income reflected on their
tax record, minus loans, shows that these checks could not have
been redeposited or they wouldn't have balanced. And GAO helped
us come to the conclusion of that analysis.

Senator Cohen. But that wouldn't apply to the second check,
though.

Mr. Lord. We have no idea, because we did not subpoena Mr.
Weiner's bank records. We have no idea if that is the case.

In conclusion, we have no reason to believe that under the
present regulatory structure, anything will change. The current
regulatory structure has had over 30 years to rid boxing of orga-
nized crime influence and involvement, and it has not done so. We
agree with the view of former organized crime member Michael
Franzese and former FBI agent Joseph Spinelli, that the most ef-
fective way to rid boxing of organized crime is Federal oversight of
the industry.

Senator at this time, I have a list of 44 exhibits that I would re-
quest be admitted into the record at this time.

Senator Cohen. [Presiding.] Without objection, they will be ad-
mitted into the record.

Mr. Lord. Thank you, and we'll be happy to answer any ques-
tions.

[The prepared statement of Messrs. Lord and Levin follows:]

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING— PART II

ORGANIZED CRIME INVOLVEMENT

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS »

Background — Kefauver Hearings

The Staff Statement of March 10, 1993 pointed out that the United States Senate
last looked into organized crime involvement in professional boxing 30 years ago.
Between 1960 and 1961, the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly,
chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.), conducted an extensive investigation,
including 13 days of hearings, concerning the boxing industry. 2 Although the inves-
tigation and hearings concentrated on anti-competitive practices in the boxing in-
dustry, they additionally exposed widespread organized crime involvement in
boxing. At the conclusion of the hearings, Senator Kefauver stated that those hear-
ings, "showed beyond any doubt that professional boxing has had too many connec-
tions with the underworld." 3

1 This Staff Statement was prepared by the Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate.

2 U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopo-
ly. Professional Boxing Hearings, 86th Congress 2d Session. Washington, D.C., June 14 and 15,
and December 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14, 1960, 87th Congress 1st Session, Washington, D.C., May
31, June 1 and 2, 1961.

3 Kefauver, Senator Estes. National Boxing Commission, Remarks in the Senate. Congression-
al Record, v. 109. March 25, 1963. p. 4786.

The Kefauver hearings were apparently brought about by a series of criminal in-
vestigations, indictments and convictions exposing organized crime involvement in
the boxing industry during the late 1950s. 4 At the start of the hearings, Senator
Kefauver reported that a criminal investigation in New York had led to the convic-
tion of underworld figures Paul John "Frank" Carbo and Gabriel Genovese for their
secret boxing activities. That same New York investigation further uncovered that
organized crime figure Anthony "Tony Fats" Salerno had financed the first Johans-
son vs. Patterson heavyweight championship. Senator Kefauver also reported that a
West Coast investigation had led to the indictment and convictions of Carbo, Frank
"Blinky" Palermo and others for their extortive attempt to control the welterweight
title.

The West Coast investigation led then Governor Edmund G. Brown of California
to state, on August 25, 1959, that boxing "smells to high heavens" and that if Con-
gress did not force a cleanup, he might recommend the abolition of the sport in his
home State. 5 Governor Brown went on to state that: "... I think we are going to
have to have some national laws on this subject because this boxing business is ap-
parently infiltrated with racketeers and gangsters." 6

The Kefauver hearings uncovered a conspiracy between organized crime elements
and licensed promoters, matchmakers and managers to control the major boxing
contests in the United States. The Subcommittee heard volumes of testimony about
how organized crime figures, and especially Frank Carbo, controlled the sport of
boxing.

James D. Norris of the International Boxing Club (IBC) testified that Carbo acted
as a "convincer" in lining up four former boxing champions, Jacob "Jake" LaMotta,
Carmen Basilio, Willie Pep and Tony DeMarco for IBC bouts. 7 Boxer Ike Williams
testified that he was boycotted by the International Managers Guild and unable to
obtain fights until he hired mobster, and Carbo associate, Frank "Blinky" Palermo
to become his manager. Williams further testified that Palermo stole two of his
championship purses and passed along several bribe offers to intentionally lose
bouts. Jake LaMotta testified that he accepted a large bribe to lose two bouts in
order to obtain a promise of a middleweight championship bout. 8 The Subcommittee
also heard testimony indicating that former heavyweight champion Sonny Liston
was secretly managed by Carbo, Palermo and St. Louis racketeer John Vitale. 9

Carbo, Palermo, Vitale, as well as others, invoked their constitutional privilege
against self-incrimination with regard to all questions relating to their boxing ac-
tivities.

Two years after exposing the problems within the boxing industry, Senator Ke-
fauver concluded in 1963 that he had seen nothing to "indicate that professional
boxing ever will, on its own initiative, free itself from control by racketeers and
other undesirables ... if strong measures are not taken to clean boxing then it
should be abolished." 10 The strong measures referred to by Senator Kefauver in-
cluded legislation that he introduced in 1961 and 1963 to provide a Federal role in
the regulation of boxing. These bills, S. 1474 (87th Congress) and S. 1182 (88th Con-
gress) would have established within the Department of Justice a United States
Boxing Commission to set minimum standards for the regulation of boxing.

In describing his legislation, Senator Kefauver stated that the primary purpose of
his legislation was to, "drive the racketeers out of boxing. . . ." X1 The Kefauver
legislation sought to do this by establishing a nationwide licensing system supported
with criminal sanctions and investigative powers, including utilization of the Feder-
al Bureau of Investigation. The licensing entity envisioned by the Kefauver legisla-
tion was given wide latitude to determine who should and should not be licensed to
participate in boxing. The legislation additionally contained a provision making it a

4 Subcommittee On Antitrust and Monopoly, Professional Boxing Hearings, 86th Congress,
2nd Session, Washington, D.C. June 14, 1960, Statement of Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn), p.
1.

5 Ibid., p. 2.

6 Ibid.

7 Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, Professional Boxing Hearings, 86th Congress, 2nd
Session, Washington, D.C. December 9, 1960, at pp. 549, 589.

8 Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, Professional Boxing Hearings, 86th Congress, 2nd
Session, Washington, D.C, June 14, 1960, p. 6.

9 Ibid., p. 1251.

10 Kefauver, Senator Estes, National Boxing Commission, Remarks in the Senate, Congres-
sional Record v. 109, March 29, 1963, p. 4786.

1 ' Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, Professional Boxing Hearings, 87th Congress,
1st Session, Washington, D.C, May 31, 1961, p. 1252.

crime to operate "behind the scenes" as a "manager-in-fact" in boxing without a
license. 12

Senator Kefauver's legislation did not become law due to his untimely death.
However, as a result of the Kefauver hearings in 1964, Congress did enact P.L. 88-
316 which made bribery in a sporting contest a Federal crime. 13

Organized Crime 14 Involvement Post-Kefauver Hearings: How Have Things
Changed?

While organized crime does not appear to exercise the pervasive control of profes-
sional boxing which was evident at the time of the last Senate investigation, orga-
nized crime members and associates of organized crime remain heavily involved in
boxing, primarily as managers, advisors and investors. There is additional evidence
that the greatly increased amount of purse money now available to top professional
boxers make the sport more attractive to organized crime. On the other hand, State
regulatory efforts to prohibit organized crime infiltration of professional boxing
have continued to be as ineffectual as they were 32 years ago.

Crown Royal Investigation

In July of 1980, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's New York Division initiated
a multi-faceted probe, known as "Crown Royal," into corruption in professional
boxing. Although the Crown Royal investigation was ended without indictments, it
revealed substantial evidence of corruption and organized crime involvement in the
boxing industry.

The supervising case agent of Crown Royal, Joseph Spinelli, 15 testified at the Sub-
committee's August 12, 1992 hearing that Crown Royal consisted of two undercover
FBI agents and a cooperating witness (who also testified at the Subcommittee's
August 12, 1992 hearing under the pseudonym "Bobby," and from behind a screen
to protect his identity) who established their own boxing company and expressed to
the boxing community a desire to promote professional fights. The agents and coop-
erating witness posed as former drug dealers seeking to arrange a boxing co-promo-
tion with Don King, a leading boxing promoter. The purported purpose of the co-
promotion was to launder large amounts of drug money.

Spinelli testified that early in the investigation, members of organized crime rep-
resented to the FBI undercover team that organized crime groups had access to var-
ious boxing promoters and could assist in arranging a co-promotion. Evidence was
also uncovered, Spinelli testified, that an organized crime associate was the recipi-
ent of the Philadelphia closed-circuit TV rights for the 1980 Ali-Holmes fight.

During the course of the investigation, the undercover agents and cooperating wit-
ness met with reputed members of three different organized crime families, the
Genovese, the Colombo, and the DeCavalcante families, all representing that they
had influence in professional boxing. Former Colombo family capo regime ("cap-
tain") Michael Franzese who was unwittingly caught up in the Crown Royal probe
and the cooperating witness, "Bobby," additionally testified that four organized
crime families (the Colombo, Genovese, and DeCavalcante as well as the Cleveland
families) were involved in arranging a meeting between the FBI undercover team
and promoter Don King.

The cooperating witness testified that he was informed by boxing public relations
man Chet Cummings that he would need "connections" to do a co-promotion of a
boxing event. Cummings introduced the undercover team to one of his connections,
the former underboss of the Colombo family, Sonny Franzese. 16 After the undercov-
er team informed Sonny Franzese that they wanted to do a co-promotion with Don
King, Sonny Franzese introduced the undercover team to his son and Colombo capo
regime, Michael Franzese, who, according to Sonny Franzese, could set up the meet-
ing with King. Michael Franzese testified that he was thereby unwittingly brought
into the Crown Royal investigation.

12 Ibid.

13 78 Stat. 203-204.

14 Organized crime in this statement refers to the traditional organized crime groups known
as La Cosa Nostra.

15 Spinelli retired from the FBI in July of 1985 and currently serves as the Inspector General
for the State of New York.

16 Michael Franzese, Sonny Franzese's son, testified at the Subcommittee's August 12, 1992
hearing on Corruption in Professional Boxing, that his father had a longstanding business and
professional interest in boxing, including an ownership interest in several boxers such as Rocky
Graziano.

Michael Franzese advised the undercover team that he could arrange the meeting
but that King was not with his family (the Colombo family) but with the DeCaval-
cante organized crime family. That crime family, in turn, had to clear the meeting
with the Cleveland organized crime family, based in King's home town. Franzese
testified that each of the four families would also get a share of the boxing co-pro-
motion for having helped arrange the meeting with Don King. Having received the
necessary clearances, Franzese testified that he then "reached out" to the Reverend
Al Sharpton to actually arrange the meeting with King because of Sharpton's well-
known ties with Don King. To set up a meeting with Sharpton, Franzese testified,
he went through Genovese family soldier Danny Pagano who was known to have
close ties with Sharpton. Pagano, Franzese testified, set up a meeting with Sharpton
and the undercover team to discuss the co-promotion. 17

During his testimony before the Subcommittee, Spinelli identified an FBI video-
tape and audiotape of meetings between Sharpton, Pagano and the undercover team
discussing the co-promotion. On the audio tape Sharpton is heard saying, "... the
only way that I know that I can guarantee Don [King] don't screw you if I go in I
want our people to go in and we be involved which is why I bring him [referring to
Pagano] to you. ..." Later on the same audiotape Pagano is heard saying, "Wait,
wait, wait . . . What you want to do is you want to make the deal with Don [King]
but you want somebody there so he can't f*** nobody." The undercover agent then
answered, "Yeah, that's right," with Pagano replying, "It's all right with me. I'll go
with you." 18

The result of all these organized crime contacts was that, on January 12, 1983, the
undercover team, along with Franzese and Sharpton, met with King. King was not
only comfortable working with organized crime members, he also expressed no con-
cern with the illicit source of the money for this proposed deal. King agreed to do
the co-promotion with the undercover team. 19 However, before that could be done,
the FBI ended the Crown Royal investigation, due to potential liability risks in-
volved in promoting a boxing match. The FBI closed the investigation, and no Fed-
eral indictments were sought.

Testimony at the Subcommittee's August 12, 1992 hearing further revealed that
Crown Royal was not Don King's only contact with organized crime. Franzese testi-
fied that he attended a meeting around 1976 where Paul Castellano, then boss of
the Gambino organized crime family, and Thomas DiBella, then boss of the Colombo
organized crime family, met with King. Franzese testified that Castellano and Di-
Bella berated King because the outcome of a fight was different than the result
King had promised, resulting in organized crime members having lost money bet-
ting on the fight. Although Franzese did not recall the particular fight, he specifi-
cally remembered that King had claimed to be able to determine the fight's out-
come in advance because he owned both boxers. 20

New Jersey Commission of Investigation

In February of 1983, after the New Jersey State Police conducted a preliminary
assessment of New Jersey's boxing controls and procedures, then New Jersey Attor-
ney General Irwin I. Kimmelman ordered the New Jersey State Commission of In-
vestigation (NJSCI or the Commission) to conduct a more in-depth inquiry. In addi-
tion to finding serious problems with New Jersey's boxing regulatory structure, 21

1 7 Testimony of Michael Franzese, PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August
11 and 12, 1992, p. 100.

18 PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, Exhibits No.
37a and 37g.

19 King invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to all
questions propounded to King at a Subcommittee deposition, PSI Hearings on Corruption in
Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992, Exhibit No. 29.

20 Crown Royal revealed that corruption in professional boxing is not limited to that which is
orchestrated by organized crime but includes corruption at all levels of professional boxing. The
FBI's cooperating witness testified that he personally delivered $3,000 to Bob Lee, then New
Jersey Deputy Boxing Commissioner, as a pay-off. This pay-off was to expedite the FBI under-
cover team obtaining a boxing promoter's license in New Jersey in order to do the co-promotion
with Don King.

In response to questions regarding these pay-offs and to all other questions propounded by
the Subcommittee at its hearing, Bob Lee invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination. PSI Hearings on Corruption in Professional Boxing, August 11 and 12, 1992.

2 * Interim Report and Recommendations of the State of New Jersey Commission of Investiga-
tion on the Inadequate Regulation of Boxing (March 1, 1984).

the Commission found such extensive organized crime involvement in New Jersey
boxing that it issued a separate report in 1985 addressing solely organized crime in-
volvement in boxing. 22

The report concluded that the Commission's inquiry, "provides ample confirma-
tion of underworld intrusion," into the New Jersey boxing industry. The report also
concluded that law enforcement monitoring of organized crime's presence in boxing
was sporadic at best. The report found the lack of law enforcement monitoring espe-
cially surprising in light of increased organized crime interest in the sport since its
revival in New Jersey as a casino industry promotional tool. Although the Commis-
sion's final report presented no conclusive proof that a particular boxer was a "mob
pawn" or that organized crime had "fixed" a given prize fight, it did find that mem-
bers and associates of organized crime were involved, at all levels of New Jersey
boxing.

The New Jersey report relates several case studies of organized crime members
and associates and their participation in the New Jersey boxing industry. Of those
addressed in the case studies, several remain active in boxing today. One such indi-
vidual is organized crime associate Alfred Certissimo, also known as Al Certo. Ac-
cording to the New Jersey report, Certo owns a tailor shop and was co-owner of a
restaurant, both of which were well known "mob hangouts." The report also estab-
lished that Certo had ongoing relationships with a host of organized crime members
and associates including Genovese soldiers John DiGilio (now deceased), John
"Moose" Marrone, Sr. and Joseph "Pepe" LaScala, among others. 23 (Certo was
granted immunity before testifying before the Commission. Certo's testimony, never-
theless, was characterized by the Commission report as "evasive.") At the time of
the 1985 report, Certo was a small-time promoter and booking agent in the North-
ern New Jersey area. Today, Certo is the manager of record of former World Boxing
Council welterweight champion James "Buddy" McGirt. (For in depth discussion of
Certo and his relationship to McGirt, see below).

Currently Active Boxers With Significant Ties To Organized Crime

Three currently active boxers have been identified as having significant ties to
organized crime figures. The three boxers are former World Boxing Council welter-
weight champion James "Buddy" McGirt, former International Boxing Federation
super-middleweight champion Iran Barkley and World Boxing Association cruiser-
weight champion Bobby Czyz. Each of these boxers has denied that they are know-
ingly controlled or influenced by organized crime figures. Whether these boxers are
unwitting dupes or willing participants with organized crime is unclear. The evi-
dence for their connections with organized crime is, however, overwhelming.

The three boxers discussed in this statement are not the only boxers with current
organized crime ties. In fact, the staff is aware of allegations involving several other
boxers who are not mentioned in this statement. The three boxers discussed do,
however, illustrate three forms of organized crime involvement in boxing. These
three case studies also represent three examples of how the current regulatory
structure has failed to keep organized crime out of boxing.

1. James "Buddy' 1 McGirt

Subcommittee staff learned from former Gambino crime family underboss Salva-
tore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano that Gambino soldier Joseph "JoJo" Corozzo
"owned a piece" of former WBC welterweight champion Buddy McGirt. Gravano
also asserts that Al Certo, McGirt's manager of record, was an associate of the Gam-
bino family. Gravano was aware of Corozzo's relationship with McGirt because Cor-
ozzo had "put it on the record" with Peter Gotti, who is Corozzo's capo regime. Gra-
vano claimed that he was then told about the relationship when Peter Gotti report-
ed it to him.

Gravano was also aware of a disagreement between the Bufalino family and the
Gambino family over who owned McGirt. Eddie Sciandra, the consigliere of the Bu-
falino family had, according to Gravano, complained to Gambino boss John Gotti
that the Bufalinos owned McGirt. Gravano was then told by Gotti to arrange a "sit
down" to settle the dispute. Gotti decided the dispute in favor of Corozzo and the
Gambino family because Corozzo had allegedly paid Sciandra for his interest in
McGirt. 24

22 Organized Crime in Boxing, Final Boxing Report of the State of New Jersey Commission of
Investigation (1985).

23 Ibid., p. 17.

24 Corozzo repeatedly exercised his Fifth Amendment right when subpoenaed to testify before
Subcommittee staff. Exhibit No. 14 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

100

At deposition, McGirt denied that anyone owned any part of his contract and said
that the only individuals with any right to a percentage of his earnings, to his
knowledge, are his managers Alfred Certissimo, also known as Al Certo, and Stuart
Weiner. 25 Certo also denied, at deposition, that anyone, to his knowledge, owned
any part of McGirt's contract other than he and Weiner. Al Certo and Stuart
Weiner themselves, however, have extensive organized crime connections.

Al Certo is characterized by at least two law enforcement entities as a Genovese
family associate. The 1985 New Jersey State Commission on Investigation report
concluded that Al Certo had extensive ties with organized crime figures. 26 In a dep-
osition before Subcommittee staff, Certo acknowledged familiarity with a large
number of organized crime figures but denied that such individuals had dealings
with him or Mr. McGirt. When asked at deposition about Mr. McGirt's connections
with Gambino soldier Corozzo, for example, Certo stated:

Certo: Nah. He has nothing to do with Buddy whatsoever.

Q. Okay. Does he

Certo: You've gotta understand, these people have nothing to do with us,
nothing whatsoever.

Q. Who are "these people"?

Certo: I mean, you're talking about guys like John Marrone [reputed Gen-
ovese soldier], Johnny DeGilio [reputed Genovese soldier — deceased]. They
never had no — I just know these guys. I never had no dealings with them
and I'm not a so-called criminal, like you said these guys were. All the
years that I seen them, I never seen these guys do anything. I wasn't a wit-
ness to it. So I can't talk about anybody. 27

McGirt's deposition testimony indicates that Certo takes a more visible and active
role in McGirt's management than does Weiner. For example, McGirt testified that
Certo, rather than Weiner, takes charge of McGirt's training, contract negotiations
and other boxing related meetings. 28 In addition, although Certo and McGirt both
testified that Weiner is an equal co-manager with Certo, only Certo is, or has been
recently, licensed as McGirt's manager by State boxing regulators. At his deposition,
McGirt was vague about the specific management duties that Weiner performs. 29

Certo testified that Weiner receives half of the manager's share of McGirt's earn-
ings. Weiner received $197,044 of McGirt's earnings between January 26, 1990 and
August 14, 1992 according to a staff analysis of Alfred Certissimo Inc. (ACI's) finan-
cial records. (ACI is a company controlled by Certo and Weiner that holds all of
McGirt's boxing earnings.) But Weiner has effective control of McGirt's boxing earn-
ings through Weiner's authority to write checks on ACI's checking account. This ac-
count receives and disburses all of McGirt's boxing earnings. Some of the payments
to Weiner were by ACI checks written by Weiner himself.

It is impossible to determine with certainty who the actual recipient is of a large
percentage of payments made by ACI by Certo or Weiner because of questionable
payment practices. The fact that all of McGirt's earnings go directly to a corpora-
tion, ACI, which is controlled by Certo and Weiner, is questionable itself. It circum-
vents the intent of State regulations requiring that the boxer be paid directly by the
promoter in the presence of a State boxing regulator to insure that the boxer actual-
ly receive his full purse. 30

One questionable pattern and practice involves third party endorser transactions.
A large number of ACI checks are so-called "third party endorser" checks. This
practice involves ACI, through Weiner or Certo, writing a check to someone, then
that person's endorsement is written on the back of the check and the check is
given back to Weiner or Certo who endorse the check again, becoming the third
party endorser. In an analysis of ACI's checks and bank statements, staff found that
very few such checks appear to be redeposited into ACI's account, suggesting that
the third party endorsed checks are being converted into cash. Certo explained the
process at his deposition as follows: "he (Weiner) might put Buddy McGirt on there

25 McGirt deposition, p. 74-75. Exhibit No. 13 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

26 Organized Crime in Boxing, Final Boxing Report of the State of New Jersey Commission of
Investigation (1985), p. 17.

27 Certissimo deposition, p. 137. Exhibit No. 12 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

28 McGirt deposition, pp. 28-29. Exhibit No. 13 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

29 Ibid., pp. 26-28.

30 See Nevada State Athletic Commission rule 467.142(31, New York State Athletic Commis-
sion rule 208.19. Exhibit No. 27 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

101

(the check) and sign the back and go to the bank and cash it." 31 Certo further testi-
fied that he also takes cash payment by the same method. :ia During the period Jan-
uary 1990 through September 1992 over 10 percent of all checks totalling in excess
of $158,000 were handled in this manner.

A second questionable pattern involves the practice of writing two checks to the
same payee on the same day. On eight separate occasions, Stuart Weiner wrote him-
self two checks for significant amounts of money on the same day. On one day,
Weiner wrote three separate checks to himself.

ACI's questionable accounting practices raise questions regarding exactly how the
money McGirt earns is distributed. The complexity of the flow of funds for McGirt's
fights is illustrated by analyzing the revenue for the McGirt-Simon Brown WBC
welterweight championship fight, which was held on November 29, 1991, in Las
Vegas. 33

This fight was a co-promotion of Don King Productions, Inc. (DKP), which had the
promotional rights to Simon Brown, and MSG Boxing, as McGirt's promoter. DKP
paid MSG Boxing $800,000 for the fight from which MSG Boxing paid McGirt and
took its promotional share, which was $100,000. 34

MSG Boxing paid McGirt $700,000, according to an agreement signed in New
York (the New York contract) on November 26, 1991, by Bob Goodman (representing
MSG Boxing), McGirt and Certo. 35 According to this agreement, McGirt was to re-
ceive $625,000 plus $75,000 in training expenses for the Brown fight. The New York
contract included options on five future McGirt fights by MSG. This agreement is at
odds with the bout contract filed with the Nevada State Athletic Commission (the
Nevada contract), which called for McGirt to receive only $625,000 for the Brown
fight and which contained no options for future fights. 36

All of the money due McGirt for the Brown fight was paid to ACI, pursuant to a
letter from McGirt (on MSG Boxing letterhead) to the Nevada Athletic Commission
requesting that payment be made in that manner. 37 MSG Boxing paid checks in the
amount of $18,750 to the WBC on November 26, 1991, (sanctioning fee) and $566,250
and $40,000 to ACI on November 27, 1991. These checks totaled $625,000.

However, that does not appear to be the case. Upon investigating this matter fur-
ther, MSG Boxing provided the Subcommittee with a different copy of its $40,000
check to ACI. 38 This copy was marked void across the front and the back was signed
"Alfred Certissimo, Inc." and had what appears to be the incomplete signature of
Stuart Weiner. According to MSG Boxing, the Mirage Hotel would not cash for
Weiner the corporate check payable to ACI. As a result, that check was never nego-
tiated. To pay Weiner the $40,000 cash, Goodman asked Don King to pay MSG Box-
ing's co-promotion fee in two checks, with one in the amount of $40,000. Goodman
then cashed that check at the Mirage Hotel and gave Weiner $40,000 cash.

In a recent indictment filed by the District Attorney for New York County,
Weiner was named as a member of the Joseph Corozzo crew of the Gambino orga-
nized crime family. 39 The indictment alleges that the Corozzo crew is engaged in

31 Certissimo deposition, p. 113. Exhibit No. 12 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

32 Ibid., pp. 113-114.

33 See "Flow of Funds" chart, prepared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
Exhibit No. 4 appears on page 164.

34 MSG Boxing's promotional fee included a $50,000 advance from McGirt to MSG Boxing,
which was subsequently repaid by MSG Boxing in two $25,000 installments in the form of
checks to ACI on February 20, 1992, and March 13, 1992. Exhibits No. 33f and 33g are retained
in the files of the Subcommittee.

35 Bout Agreement With Options, dated November 26, 1991, signed by Bob Goodman, Buddy
McGirt and Al Certo, Exhibit No. 38 appears on page 259.

36 Nevada Athletic Commission Articles of Agreement, November 22, 1991, signed by Bob
Goodman, Buddy McGirt and Al Certo. For a discussion of how these contracts violate various
Nevada Athletic Commission rules, see Staff Report: "Corruption in professional Boxing — Inad-
equate State Regulation," March 10, 1993, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Exhibit
No. 21d appears on page 254.

37 Letter dated November 26, 1991, from Buddy McGirt to Chuck Minker. Nevada rules allow
a boxer to assign his share of the purse by filing a written request with the commission at least
five days prior to the fight. Nevada State Athletic Commission rule 467.137(5). However, allow-
ing a boxer to assign his purse to his manager's company appears to violate the policy behind
the Nevada rules. Exhibit No. 21c appears on page 253.

38 Check No. 505394, dated 11/27/91, in the amount of $40,000 from MSG Corporation to ACI,
marked "void." Exhibit No. 33h appears on page 257. The original copy of this check provided to
the Subcommittee by MSG Boxing was a copy made when the check was initially cut and filed
routinely. Exhibit No. 33e appears on page 256.

39 State of New York v. Joseph Corozzo et al., Indictment No. 11458-92 (New York Supreme
Court), November 18, 1992. (Exhibit to Corozzo deposition, Exhibit No. 14 is retained in the files
of the Subcommittee.)

102

illegal gambling, loan sharking and fencing of stolen goods, among other things.
McGirt testified that he was aware that Weiner and Corozzo were friends and that
he (McGirt) had been introduced to Corozzo by Weiner. 40 However, McGirt denied
any knowledge of organized crime activities or involvement on the part of Corozzo
or Weiner. McGirt did testify that Weiner had asked him to attend the trial of Gam-
bino boss John Gotti. McGirt did, in fact, attend the Gotti trial, and Gotti greeted
him at one point when Gotti was leaving the courtroom. When asked why Weiner
would attend the trial of John Gotti, McGirt replied, "I guess they're boyhood
friends." 41

2. Iran Barkley

Former International Boxing Federation (IBF) super-middleweight champion, Iran
Barkley, testified at deposition that he currently does not have a manager but does
have "advisors." Barkley testified that one of his advisors is Eddie Mustafa Moham-
med who serves as his trainer and receives the customary 10 percent of Barkley's
earnings. The other advisor is Lenny Minuto who has been identified as a Luchese
crime family associate. 42 The role played by Minuto as well as his compensation is
less well-defined.

When asked at his deposition about Minuto's role and compensation, Barkley was
vague. For example, at one point Barkley claimed that Minuto was not paid to be
his advisor, while at another point Barkley stated that Minuto would be paid
$100,000 in connection with Barkley's February title defense against James
Toney. 43 Stan Hoffman, who has served as an advisor to both Minuto and Barkley
testified, however, that he was under the impression that Minuto received 20 per-
cent of Barkley's purse. 44 Minuto's role as an advisor to Barkley ranges from acting
as an investment advisor to negotiating contracts for Barkley. 45 Minuto's role as a
boxing adviser is, however, questionable considering that long-time boxing people
such as Stan Hoffman do not consider Minuto to be knowledgable about boxing. At
his deposition before Subcommittee staff, Hoffman stated, "... because he [Minuto]
really knew nothing about boxing that I could tell. . . , 46 Barkley also does not
appear to consider Minuto knowledgable about boxing. For example, when asked
what Minuto actually did as his advisor, Barkley testified, "[l]ike when we have
meetings with Bob Arum (boxing promoter) or whatever, you know. I call him
[Minuto] and Mustafa to sit in with me, and they sit in, and being that Mustafa
know the game and I know the game, and Lenny [Minuto], he's learning, you know,
from what we've showed him and he sits in with us and we talk. . . ." 47

The Minuto-Barkley relationship is illustrative of how organized crime figures are
involved in the boxing industry as unlicensed paid "advisors" to boxers. For exam-
ple, boxing a promoter Bob Arum told staff that he had to pay Minuto $125,000, in
addition to Barkley's purse, in order to get Barkley to agree to fight James Toney.
The practice of labeling oneself an advisor rather than a manager or co-manager
allows one to avoid State licensure, yet be active in the business of boxing. The role
of an advisor is often, however, indistinguishable from that of a manager. So-called
advisors often negotiate on behalf of boxers and assure that boxers prepare them-
selves for fights, all of which qualify one as a manager under most State boxing
regulations. For example, the New York State Boxing Regulations Part 205.1(g)
define a manager as ". . . any person, including an 'agent,' who directly or indirect-
ly, directs or administers the affairs of any boxer. . . ." New Jersey defines a man-
ager as anyone who "directs or controls the activities of a professional boxer"
(NJAC 13:46-1.1) or as anyone entitled to 10 percent or more of a boxer's earnings
(NJAC 13:46-1.1). Most so-called "advisors," including Minuto, would fit at least one
of the above definitions of a manager. Nevertheless, they are not licensed, and
States do not enforce the licensure requirement.

40 McGirt deposition, p. 6. Exhibit No. 13 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

41 Ibid., p. 8.

42 According to the deposition testimony of boxing advisor Stan Hoffman, Lenny Minuto was
also involved with the career of now-retired professional boxer Dennis Milton (Hoffman deposi-
tion at p.37); Subcommittee staff has found no record of Minuto being licensed as a manager of
Milton. Staff did find that Minuto's son, Lenny Minuto, Jr., was licensed in New Jersey as
Dennis Milton's manager. Lenny Minuto also has a cousin named Marco Minuto who has man-
aged several professional boxers and was licensed in New York until 1991. Exhibit No. 16 is
retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

43 Barkley deposition, p. 44. Exhibit No. 17 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

44 Hoffman deposition, p. 44. Exhibit No. 16 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

45 Barkley deposition, pp. 28, 41. Exhibit No. 17 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

46 Hoffman deposition, p. 39. Exhibit No. 16 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

47 Barkley deposition, p. 42. Exhibit No. 17 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

103

3. Bobby Czyz

Bobby Czyz is the current World Boxing Association cruiserweight champion. Czyz
testified at the Subcommittee's August 11, 1992 hearing that during his early profes-
sional boxing career, his father negotiated a 10-year earnings agreement with
Andrew Licari and Andrew Dembrowski whereby Czyz received a $300,000 advance
against a percentage of his future earnings. According to Czyz, this arrangement
gave him the resources to dedicate himself to boxing and gave his investors the
right, for 10 years, to 26 percent of Czyz' boxing earnings.

Czyz testified that, although the terms of his contract with Licari and Dem-
browski had expired, he had voluntarily extended the contract to account for sever-
al years of boxing inactivity on his part. Licari testified at a Subcommittee deposi-
tion that Czyz had voluntarily extended the agreement on two separate occasions. 48
Licari claimed that Czyz had agreed to do this because he and his partner, Dem-
browski, had not gotten their initial investment back. According to Licari, the
agreement is in effect indefinitely until they get their investment back. 49 When
Czyz was asked whether Licari exercised any control over his career, Czyz answered,
"[absolutely zero. He [Licari] has been a good friend and nothing more, as well as a
business associate in that regard."

Czyz denied any knowledge of Licari's or Dembrowski's ties to organized crime.
Czyz was aware, however, of the 1985 New Jersey Commission on Investigation's
Report that alleged that Licari was an associate of the Luchese crime family. More-
over, a sworn statement submitted to the Subcommittee by former acting boss of the
Luchese family, Alfonse D'Arco, states as follows, "I am familiar with Andrew
Licari of Northern New Jersey. Licari is a member of the Luchese family and was
inducted into the family sometime around 1990. Licari was brought in by a relative
of Licari's and Luchese member, Leonard Pizzolatto. Licari is involved in loan
sharking and several other businesses." 50 In his Subcommittee deposition, Licari
acknowledged that, in addition to his original investment in Bobby Czyz's contract,
he made interest-free loans to Czyz. A letter submitted to the Subcommittee by Li-
cari's attorney indicates that Licari and Dembrowski have loaned Czyz $80,000 since
1981 and $50,000 of that amount is still owed. Licari testified at his deposition that
it was not customary for him or his business to loan money to individuals. 51

D'Arco also testified at the 1992 trial of Luchese boss Vittoria Amuso that Licari
was a member of the Accetturo crew of the Luchese family. At his Subcommittee
deposition, Licari acknowledged knowing the individuals alleged to comprise the Ac-
cetturo crew, but denied any personal knowledge of the crew or that the alleged
members of the crew were affiliated in any way with organized crime. 52

Although ownership of a percentage of a boxer's contract, which establishes the
right to some percentage of the boxer's future earnings, is a common practice, such
agreements are rarely public knowledge or recorded with boxing regulators.

In many cases, these practices circumvent the licensing requirements of State
boxing regulators. These licensing regulations require individuals involved in the
business of boxing such as trainers and managers, to be licensed with the State
boxing commission. Licensing, in turn, allows a State to control who is involved in
the sport and to exclude those who, after being licensed, are a detriment to the
sport. A boxing commission has little control or leverage over individuals it does not
license. But licensing is only effective if the licensing entity makes at least a mini-
mal inquiry into the background of the individual being licensed. As illustrated in
the following section on the regulatory structure of boxing, most State regulators do
not make even minimal inquiries.

Inadequate Regulation

Organized crime's presence in the boxing industry and its attendant corrupting
effect has long been suspected. It has been part of the public record since the Ke-
fauver hearings in the early 1960s and most recently with the hearings before this
Subcommittee. The continued presence of organized crime in the boxing industry is
most discouraging because the tools exist to eliminate it. First, law enforcement has
become extremely capable at identifying and combatting organized crime members
and associates. Secondly, the major boxing States have the laws and regulations nec-
essary to exclude organized crime members and associates from the boxing industry.
The regulations, however, are not being enforced.

48 Licari deposition, pp. 33, 39. Exhibit No. 47 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

49 Ibid., pp. 38-39.

50 Exhibit No. 31 appears on page 255.

51 Licari deposition at pp. 53-54. Exhibit No. 47 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

52 Ibid., pp. 62-87.

104

The clear intent of State licensure rules and regulations is that those who partici-
pate in boxing in any significant way, should be licensed by the regulatory body at
issue. Licensure in boxing, as with any profession or activity, is the most basic way
to police a profession or activity. Licensure is, in addition, the means to exclude
those who would be a detriment to a profession or activity. Indeed, one of the pri-
mary purposes of the Kefauver legislation, introduced over 30 years ago, was to,
"drive the racketeers out of boxing. . . ." 53 To accomplish this purpose, the licens-
ing entity envisioned by the Kefauver legislation would have been given wide lati-
tude to determine who should and should not be licensed to participate in boxing.
The legislation additionally contained a provision making it a crime to operate
"behind the scenes" as a "manager-in-fact" in boxing without a license. 54

States today generally have wide latitude concerning their ability to deny or
revoke a license to participate in boxing. The Nevada State Athletic Commission
has a regulation allowing it to deny or revoke a license if the applicant or licensee:
Has been convicted of a felony; engages in illegal bookmaking; engages in illegal
gambling; or "[i]s a reputed underworld character." 55 In the State of New Jersey,
the State Athletic Control Board has the power to deny or revoke the license of a
boxing manager or promoter if the applicant or licensee is convicted of a "crime of
moral turpitude or any other offense which indicates that licensure would be inimi-
cal to the conduct of the sport of boxing. . . ." 56 In New York State, the State Ath-
letic Commission can deny a license to participate in boxing based solely on the
character and general fitness of an applicant. 57 New York also has a regulation al-
lowing revocation of a boxing license if a licensee is guilty of an act detrimental to
boxing or associates or consorts with persons who have been convicted of a crime or
who are "bookmakers, gamblers or persons of similar pursuits. . . ." 58

When asked at a Subcommittee deposition whether the Nevada Athletic Commis-
sion had ever, under its rule 467.082 denied a license to a "reputed underworld
character," the chairman of the Nevada Athletic Commission Elias Ghanem, re-
plied, "I don't know if any reputed underworld character has ever applied for a li-
cense." 59 Marc Ratner, the Commission's chief inspector, testified at the same depo-
sition that although the Commission application asks if an applicant has been ar-
rested for a felony, the Commission does not do background checks nor does it con-
tact any law enforcement agencies about licensure applicants. When asked why the
Commission did not do background checks, Ratner testified - that the Commission
does not have the staff to do so.

The testimony of New Jersey State Athletic Commissioner Larry Hazzard indi-
cates that New Jersey, like Nevada, does not attempt to enforce its licensure laws
and regulations. At the Subcommittee's August 11, 1992 hearing, Hazzard was ques-
tioned about the licensure of Alfred Certissimo, also known as Al Certo. The 1985
New Jersey Commission of Investigation Report on Organized Crime in Boxing
stated, "Al Certo's admitted close association with organized crime figures dictate
that he be barred from licensure and, in fact, from any professional role in the
sport." 60

Hazzard testified that he was familiar with Certo and with the 1985 Report but
had, nevertheless, repeatedly licensed Certo to participate in New Jersey boxing.
When asked why Certo had repeatedly been licensed in New Jersey in light of the
1985 Report, Hazzard testified, "we do not feel that, based on a report that was sub-
mitted by a State Commission of Investigation [we] should deny Mr. Certo of his
right to participate in the sport of boxing." Hazzard further testified that he did not
conduct background checks of licensure applicants because he did not have the re-
sources to do so. Hazzard did acknowledge that he could have checked with the
Commission of Investigation regarding its findings.

The Kefauver hearings confirmed the long held belief that whatever organized
crime touches it corrupts. Those hearings additionally confirmed that, as with any
industry, once organized crime's corrupting influence takes hold, it is difficult to
shake it off.

53 Subcommittee on Anititrust and Monopoly, Professional Boxing Hearings, 87th Congress,
1st Session, Washington, D.C. May 31, 1961, p. 1252.

54 Ibid.

55 Nevada State Athletic Commission rule 467.082.

56 New Jersey Administrative Code 13:46-6.18 and 18.8.

57 Unconsolidated Laws, Title 25 Sports, Chapter 1— Boxing and Wrestling, § 8912(i).

58 Ibid., at § 8917(b).

59 Ghanem deposition, p. 23. Exhibit No. 11 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

60 Organized Crime in Boxing, Final Boxing Report of the State of New Jersey Commission on
Investigation (1985), p. 17.

105

At the Subcommittee's hearing on August 12, 1992, Michael Franzese, former
capo in the Colombo organized crime family, testified as to some of the detrimental
effects of organized crime involvement in professional boxing. According to Fran-
zese, former middleweight champion, Vito Antuofermo, was owned by Andrew
Russo, a capo and former acting boss of the Colombo family. As is the case with
Licari, Weiner, Corozzo and Minuto, however, Russo was not listed as Antuofermo's
manager of record. Franzese testified that it was well known in boxing circles that
Russo controlled Antuofermo. This enabled Franzese and other Colombo family
members to know in advance the likely outcome of many of Antuofermo's fights so
that organized crime could place their bets accordingly, with individuals wagering
as much as $50,000-$100,000 on particular fights. Interestingly, Franzese testified
that, when Antuofermo fought Marvin Hagler for the middleweight title, organized
crime associates were told that the outcome of the fight was not pre-determined and
that they were "on their own" with any bets they made on that fight.

In addition to the inside information gained from owning or being associated with
a boxer, Franzese further testified about how organized crime uses this connection
to manipulate boxers to benefit the interests of organized crime. Often this occurs at
the expense of the best interests of the boxer and professional boxing. Franzese pro-
vided such an example in the case of Davey Moore, a middleweight in whom Fran-
zese testified that he owned an 8 percent interest.

On June 16, 1983, Moore was scheduled to fight Roberto Duran. Moore, however,
was not in the best shape and wanted to postpone the bout. Franzese testified that
he and the other people who owned Moore, knew that their fighter, in that physical
condition, could not beat Duran and that betting against their own boxer would be
almost a sure thing. Thus, they decided to hold the fight as scheduled. Duran won
and so did organized crime, by betting heavily against their own boxer.

Recent press reports have questioned Buddy McGirt's physical condition during
his recent title defense on March 6, 1993. It was well publicized that McGirt was
suffering shoulder problems prior to the March 6th fight, and he underwent major
shoulder surgery after the fight. Certo is alleged in one press report to have dissuad-
ed McGirt from seeing a private physician about his shoulder prior to the fight.
Certo is quoted as saying, "Before the fight I had the injury. I still got the injury
and a million bucks. 61

Conclusion

The Subcommittee's investigation has shown that organized crime is currently in-
volved in the boxing industry. There is no reason to believe that this situation will
change. In fact, there is every reason to believe that organized crime involvement i;i
the boxing industry will increase. The business of boxing is ideally suited for orga-
nized crime for two primary reasons. Boxing involves large sums of money, and it is
ineffectively regulated.

Boxing's current regulatory structure has clearly failed to prevent organized
crime involvement in boxing. Organized crime members and associates are allowed
to manage, advise and invest in professional boxers. These same members and asso-
ciates are either licensed by the State boxing commissions or allowed to avoid State
licensure. The State commissions cite lack of resources as the reason they do not
inquire into the background of their licensure applicants. Lack of resources, howev-
er, does not explain why the New Jersey Athletic Commission continued to license
Al Certo after the New Jersey Commission of Investigations concluded that Certo
had so many organized connections he should not be licensed. Lack of resources also
does not explain why the New York Athletic Commission recently re-licensed pro-
moter Don King after this Subcommittee heard testimony about his extensive orga-
nized crime connections.

One can only conclude, as did Senator Kefauver 32 years ago, that the States are
unable to adequately regulate the business and sport of boxing. In addition, boxing
has made no effort to regulate itself. The alternatives are to either abolish the short
or provide some sort of federal oversight. Abolishing boxing would probably be un-
workable and would be unf air to the thousands of young men that the sport has
benefitted.

With regard to organized crime, one of the strongest endorsements for a federal
role in boxing came from former Colombo capo Michael Franzese who testified that
Federal involvement in the boxing is, "likely to result in less organized crime in-
volvement in the sport." Franzese explained that due to the pressure that the Fed-
eral Government has placed on organized crime, organized crime is becoming in-

6 ' Exhibit No. 43 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

106

creasingly more reluctant to get involved in activities monitored by the Federal
Government.

Senator Cohen. The first question I would ask you is, in spite of
the testimony we had last fall that the best way to rid organized
crime of involvement in boxing is to have strong Federal oversight,
we just had someone who is actively involved in organized crime
and the boxing profession, indicated that would make very little
difference as long as the money is there. Do you have any response
to that?

Mr. Lord. Well, Senator, according to what we have heard
during the course of this investigation, I would have to disagree.
The Federal Government did a very good job of capturing Mr. Gra-
vano, and in general the Federal Government has done a good job
prosecuting and investigating organized crime, so I think they
would continue to do so with regard to the boxing industry.

Senator Cohen. OK. Perhaps you could tell us a bit more about
the function of State licensing boards and their relationship to
boxing participants and licensed advisors and unlicensed advisors.

Mr. Lord. As far as unlicensed advisors go, there is no relation-
ship between them and the State regulatory agencies because they
totally circumvent the licensing process. They are not licensed;
they do not put in applications for a license. And as far as we can
tell, the boxing commissions do not go after them, don't try to force
them to be licensed, and don't try to exclude them from boxing if
they are in fact participating in the sport.

Senator Cohen. Well, do they perform any functions that would
otherwise bring them within the scope of State regulation?

Mr. Lord. Yes, Senator, in many cases, they do. I think the ex-
amples on our chart — Lenny Minuto as one — are good ones. If he
in fact receives 10 percent of Iran Barkley's boxing earnings, then
he is a manager under the New Jersey definition of a manager —
anyone who receives 10 percent or more of a boxer's earnings — and
he would therefore have to be licensed as a manager in that State.
Other States have very broad definitions of a manager — anyone
who helps direct the career of the boxer. He certainly, according to
the deposition of Mr. Barkley, is helping to direct his career and
would have to be licensed as a manager in that capacity also.

Senator Cohen. Should we have a uniform definition of what
constitutes an advisor?

Mr. Lord. Yes, Senator, or what constitutes a manager, so it
would encompass all of these unlicensed advisors.

Senator Cohen. Mr. Levin, I think the staff statement indicates
there is evidence that Mr. Lenny Minuto may have received as
much as $225,000 in connection with Mr. Barkley's last fight. Do
you want to explain the evidence and how you arrived at that
figure?

Mr. Levin. Certainly, Senator. The fight we are referring to was
the Iran Barkley-James Toney IBF super middleweight champion-
ship fight. In his deposition, Iran Barkley said that he was going to
pay Mr. Minuto $100,000 from that fight. In addition, Bob Arum,
who was the promoter of that fight, has told us that in order to get
Barkley to agree to that fight, he had to agree to a side deal where
Arum would pay Minuto $125,000, thus bringing Minuto's total
take from that fight to $225,000.

107

Senator Cohen. Is there any evidence that Mr. Barkley himself
knew about this?

Mr. Levin. The deposition of Mr. Barkley was taken prior to the
fight, so talking about the $100,000, he was saying that prospective-
ly, that is what he was going to pay Mr. Minuto. With regard to
the side deal between Mr. Minuto and Mr. Arum, Mr. Arum said
that Mr. Barkley was involved with the negotiations and therefore
presumably was aware of that side deal.

Senator Cohen. OK. Are there any background checks that are
currently undertaken for those who apply for licensing to partici-
pate in boxing?

Mr. Lord. I think I can answer that, Senator. No. If you submit
an application to be licensed, you have to fill out a form. It asks
certain questions, but to our knowledge, no one checks the answers,
no one checks to see if the individual has a criminal record or has
any organized crime involvement. k

Senator Cohen. Who should be in the business of checking back-
ground? Are you suggesting that the commissions do that work?

Mr. Lord. Probably not. I think law enforcement would probably
be best able to do that, much in the way the Senate does back-
ground checks of people who are being appointed to positions. They
could simply call the local law enforcement, or the Federal law en-
forcement, and ask if the individual has a criminal record or
known association with original crime, something like that.

Senator Cohen. And the primary reason that current State-based
regulatory systems are not effective is what?

Mr. Lord. Well, I think one of the primary reasons — a lot of the
States have very good regulations on the books. The problem is
they just don't enforce those regulations. The unlicensed advisor
example is a good one because a lot of States have regulations re-
quiring that these people be licensed. The states just do not enforce
those regulations.

And the second problem is inconsistency, as you just mentioned.
There is a definition for a manager in every different State, so you
may be a manager under one State but not under the next. It is
very confusing.

Senator Cohen. OK. Could you explain in a little more detail
what methodology you used to analyze the financial practices of
Alfred Certissimo, Inc.?

Mr. Lord. We subpoenaed all the records from Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., and that included bank statements, tax records, cancelled
checks, and any other documentation regarding Alfred Certissimo,
Inc. Alfred Certissimo's sole business is boxing, so we asked for all
of their financial records. 1 We then had GAO do a detailed break-
down and analysis of those records. We had those submitted into a
database so that we could then generate reports showing certain
payment practices. And that is how we discovered the practices
that we have testified to today.

Senator Cohen. Would you explain again why you believe that
when two checks were written to the same person on the same day,

1 Exhibit No. 44 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

108

at least one of those checks was converted to cash. What evidence
do you have of that?

Mr. Lord. The evidence that we have is that over 10 percent of
all checks written on the Alfred Certissimo, Inc. account are writ-
ten in this method illustrated on the top, the third party endorser
method. Stuart Weiner writes a check to himself for a certain
amount of money. He then signs his name on the back, endorsing
it. Then he puts the third party endorsement of Alfred Certissimo,
Inc., and then he writes, "For deposit only," which would make you
think that he wrote himself a check and then redeposited it into
the same account the check was written on, which would make no
sense as far as we can tell. But anyway, that's what it looks like
happens.

But then what we did was we went through all the bank state-
ments, totalled up the deposits, then went through their tax
records, totalled up their income minus loans, and saw that depos-
its and income balanced. If they were redepositing all these checks,
there would be an imbalance in the income coming into Alfred Cer-
tissimo, Inc.

Senator Cohen. If we could see that next chart, 1 I was going to
ask you about other types of practices involving Alfred Certissimo,
Inc.

Mr. Lord. OK. This is a third practice that occurs occasionally,
and we have deposition testimony from Mr. McGirt 2 that Mr.
Weiner has authority to write his name on the backs of checks, and
it appears that's what happened here. Stuart Weiner wrote a check
to James McGirt — and look very carefully at the signature — for
$2,000, and he appears to have written his name on the back, then
wrote "Stuart Weiner, For Deposit Only." As you can see from the
corresponding bank record, $2,000 was taken out of the account
and was never put back in. So the money was evidently converted
to cash.

Senator Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Roth. Thank you for your testimony and information
and for doing a good job. We appreciate it.

Our next panel of witnesses includes James "Buddy" McGirt,
former WBC welterweight champion, who is accompanied by his co-
managers, Al Certo and Stuart Weiner. If these gentlemen would
please come forward.

I would ask Messrs. McGirt, Certo and Weiner to stand. Every-
body has to be sworn in before testifying. Would you please raise
your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you will give before
this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. McGirt. I do.

Mr. Certissimo. I do.

Mr. Weiner. I do.

Senator Roth. Gentlemen, please be seated.

Mr. D'Chiara. Wait a second. We'd just like to arrange our seat-
ing here before you start.

1 Exhibit No. 6 appears on page 166.

2 Exhibit No. 13 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

109

Senator Roth. Gentlemen, are any of you accompanied by coun-
sel today?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes.

Mr. D'BliaBlias. Yes, Senator. Let me identify myself. I am Dino
D'BliaBlias, and I am an attorney from the State of New Jersey,
and I represent Mr. Certo and Mr. McGirt.

Mr. D'Chiara. And my name is Michael D'Chiara. I am an attor-
ney from New York, and I also represent Mr. Certo and Mr.
McGirt.

Mr. Schulman. My name is Edwin Schulman. I am an attorney
from New York, and I represent Mr. Weiner.

Senator Roth. Do any of the witnesses have a statement at this
time?

Mr. McGirt?

Mr. D'Chiara. We were told that you required a statement 48
hours in advance, and on that basis, we have decided not to
produce one, although we would like to make a brief statement
now if that is acceptable to the Subcommittee.

Senator Roth. Yes. Let me say the witnesses are entitled to
counsel and the advice of counsel, but the counsel are not the wit-
nesses.

Mr. D'Chiara. It is not for the purpose of testifying, but just to
make an observation. It seems as though you have been fairly le-
nient.

Senator Roth. Let me say that counsel has no right to testify
here.

Mr. D'Chiara. I understand that.

Senator Roth. If you have any advice, you can give it to your
witness, but it is limited to that.

Mr. D'Chiara. Right. But I am still requesting of you, Mr. Roth
and Senator McCain, the right to make a brief statement before we
commence this part of the hearing.

Senator Roth. The witness can make a statement; that's correct.
He is free to make a statement now.

Mr. D'Chiara. Right. I'm asking on his behalf if I can make a
statement.

Senator Roth. No, you cannot.

Mr. D'BliaBlias. Then, may I have an opportunity to confer
with Mr. Certo at this moment?

Senator Roth. Yes, you may.

Mr. Schulman. Mr. Roth, in the meantime, I'm making a re-
quest on behalf of Mr. Weiner whether any of the questions that
are going to be posed are as a result of electronic eavesdropping.

Senator Roth. Again, you are here to give advice to your client.
You are not here to ask questions or to testify.

Mr. D'BliaBlias. Senator Roth, would you permit Mr. Certo to
make a statement at this time?

Senator Roth. Yes, of course, Mr. Certo can make a statement.

110

TESTIMONY OF ALFRED CERTISSIMO AND JAMES "BUDDY"
MCGIRT, FORMER WBC WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION, ACCOM-
PANIED BY MICHAEL DCHIARA AND DINO D'BLIABLIAS, COUN-
SEL; AND STUART WEINER, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWIN SCHUL-
MAN, COUNSEL

Mr. Certissimo. How do you do? First of all, this is the very first
time that we heard a statement from Mr. Gravano. I didn't even
know what he was going to say.

Senator Roth. Would you pull the microphone closer to you,
please?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, sure. And we weren't actually prepared, but
anyhow, despite that fact that we didn't know, I am here and pre-
pared to answer all the questions that you have to put forth to me.

Senator Roth. Is that your complete statement, Mr. Certo?

Mr. Certissimo. Well, I don't know. You know I'd like to give my
views on his testimonial over here.

Senator Roth. Well, you are free to make a statement now if you
wish.

Mr. Certissimo. Do you want me to say it now? OK. Well, first of
all, you know I have been involved in boxing for 45, maybe 50
years, ever since I was a young boy. And Mr. Gravano made a
statement that he was involved in boxing in the forties and fif-
ties — I don't know if he mentioned the forties, but even in the fif-
ties — how old was Mr. Gravano in the fifties? Nine years old? Eight
years old? Or in the sixties, too.

The statement that he made, taking money off fighters, I mean,
here is a man who has admitted to killing 19 people. It is so easy to
put a gun to anyone's head — Donald Trump or Don King — and say
give me $5 million, give me $50 million, or I'll blow your brains
out, instead of taking nickels and dimes off boxers. It doesn't make
sense. He's the gangster here. He's the guy who knows everything.
I've never seen this guy in boxing in my life.

I've been around in boxing, in every gym — Buddy McGirt trains
in Jersey City, New Jersey. He said that his organization has a
gym. Why didn't we train there, then, if I was associated with his
so-called friends? Tell me why. And why did it take us 11 years to
get to the position that we're in now?

If anybody ever tried to come to us, or muscle me, or tried to
take anything from me, the first thing I would do is run to the law.
Nobody ever asked me, even during the other investigations they
had, nobody ever asked, "Is anybody bothering you guys? Is there
anything we could do?" What they did was they threw a lot of
names around, a lot of Italian names. And it just gets me sick and
tired of hearing it.

You guys look at me, with the dark glasses, I look mysterious,
and I talk through the side of my mouth — well, he must be a bad
guy; he must be organized crime. I would like Mr. Gravano — I
don't even like to call the guy "Mr. Gravano" — to take a lie detec-
tor right now, in front of me, and I'll take the lie detector, and
we'll see who is lying, in front of you guys, in front of all these
people. I never met the guy in my life. He is full of shit when he
says I know him. I don't even know this guy. This is the very first
time. And I am under oath now, right? My daughter is dead, and

Ill

I'd rather swear on her grave to tell the truth— I never met this
guy in my life. This is the very first time I ever laid eyes on him.

He talked about boxing. This guy don't even know what boxing
is. I'm an expert at it. I have been in every phase of the game.

Senator McCain. Mr. Certo, you don't have to shout.

Mr. Certissimo. I know. That's my nature. I can't help it. I'm
sorry, sir.

Senator McCain. No problem.

Mr. Certissimo. And another thing — everything looks so mysteri-
ous — that picture up there, and this and that — I mean, I look like a
criminal here. What are you guys doing here?

Senator Roth. Let me intervene

Mr. Certissimo. Well, I'd like to finish my statement.

Senator Roth. You can talk

Mr. D'Chiara. You gave him the right, Senator.

Senator Roth. Counsel has no right to intervene, I would remind
him. We are giving him the opportunity to speak, but we'll ask you
to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Certissimo. OK. I mean, these gentleman that just got off
the table, these are grown, educated men. Everything we done was
aboveboard. Every dime that was spent was — the checks that they
are referring to, if they couldn't find it, then shame on them; these
are grown, educated men. And you guys come over here, and you
paint a picture like we done something wrong.

I've dealt with Madison Square Garden for 11 years. These are
reputable people, and we've done everything aboveboard.

Senator Roth. All right. Thank you, Mr. Certo. We will proceed
now with the questions.

Mr. McGirt, is it correct that you are currently managed by Al
Certo and Stu Weiner?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, it is.

Senator Roth. And do you currently have a written management
contract with Al Certo and Stu Weiner?

Mr. McGirt. With Al Certo, yes.

Senator Roth. With

Mr. McGirt. Yes, I do.

Senator Roth. And is it true that Mr. Certo and Mr. Weiner are
entitled to receive together one-third of your boxing earnings?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, it is.

Senator Roth. Mr. McGirt, as I understood it, you last fought in
New York, is that correct, on March 8, 1993?

Mr. McGirt. Wasn't it March 6, 1993.

Senator Roth. March 6th.

Mr. McGirt. Yes, it is.

Senator Roth. And are you aware that Mr. Weiner is not li-
censed in New York as a boxing manager?

Mr. McGirt. Not really, no, I'm not.

Senator Roth. Now, what specific duties with regard to your
management does Mr. Weiner have?

Mr. McGirt. Would you like for me to start from day one, or just
briefly?

112

Senator Roth. Well, your deposition testimony 1 indicates that
you do not think Weiner knows much about boxing.

Mr. McGirt. Say that again?

Senator Roth. Is that correct? The deposition testimony indicates
that you do not think Weiner knows much about boxing. Do you
recall giving that testimony in the deposition?

Mr. D'Chiara. Senator

Senator Roth. The question is addressed to Mr. McGirt.

Mr. D'Chiara. And all I am trying to do is be helpful with Mr.
McGirt, and I think there is some misunderstanding as to what you
mean by not much knowledge.

Senator Roth. You are free to advise the witness, but you are not
free to make commentary.

Mr. D'Chiara. OK, then, if you would wait 1 minute, let me get
up, walk around and sit next to my client, and then you can con-
tinue with your questions.

Mr. D'BliaBlias. Senator, may we have a reference to the testi-
mony by page and line of the transcript which we have before us?

Mr. Rinzel. Yes. It's page 25 of his deposition testimony. Mr.
McGirt is describing — line 15 and below — referring to "Stuey" and
the negotiations — "He wouldn't open his mouth because he
wouldn't know what he was talking about." The question is

Mr. D'Chiara. If you read the whole answer in context, I think
you see it refers to the beginning of that relationship.

Mr. Rinzel. Well, then, he can answer the question. The question
is do you think

Mr. McGirt. That was from 11 years ago when I first met him,
and he first got involved in boxing, and we met Al Certo. He didn't
know too much then, because he was new to the game, so he would
just sit around and just listen and pick Al's brain and find out
more and more about boxing every day.

Senator Roth. Let me ask you this, Mr. McGirt. Does Mr. Weiner
negotiate contracts for you?

Mr. McGirt. No. He sits in while Al and my lawyer, Michael,
and Bobby Goodman — while they negotiate, Stuey sits in.

Senator Roth. But he does not help negotiate?

Mr. McGirt. No, because we both have all the faith in Al, our
lawyer, and Bobby Goodman to do the best for me.

Senator Roth. Does Mr. Weiner help with your training?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, he does.

Mr. D'Chiara. Again, we'd like to please have a page and line
reference, Senator.

Mr. Rinzel. Pages 28 and 29 of the deposition.

Mr. D'Chiara. And what line?

Mr. Rinzel. Well, there's a series of questions there.

Mr. D'Chiara. Starting where, Dan?

Mr. Rinzel. Starting at the middle of page 28.

Mr. McGirt. Well, when you say "training," everything when
we're away, as far as getting the hotels and making sure that all
the bills are paid and making sure I have my right physicals, and
so on — that all consists of training, and that's what Stuey helps me

1 Exhibit No. 13 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

113

with, because Al is in the gym, and if something has to be done, he
would appoint Stuey to do it.

Senator Roth. Now, Mr. McGirt, it is my understanding that all
your boxing earnings go directly to the checking account of a com-
pany called Alfred Certissimo, Inc.; is that correct?

Mr. McGirt. Yes.

Senator Roth. So you receive your boxing earnings from Alfred
Certissimo, Inc., and that company is controlled by Al Certo; is that
correct?

Mr. McGirt. Yes.

Senator Roth. Do you receive a lump sum in the form of one
check of your boxing earnings after a given fight, or do you receive
various amounts over a period of time?

Mr. McGirt. Excuse me. Could you repeat that again, please?

Senator Roth. Do you typically receive a lump sum in the form
of one check?

Mr. McGirt. It all depends on the fight, how much you get.
Sometimes I get a little cash, and then after we break down all the
expenses and everything, then I get the rest.

Senator Roth. So there are times when you do receive various
amounts over a period of time?

Mr. McGirt. Yes; it varies, because each fight, the purse varies.

Senator Roth. Mr. McGirt, do you keep records of the money you
receive from Alfred Certissimo Inc. to assure that you receive all
the money you are due?

Mr. D'Chiara. I'd like to confer with my client for a second.

[Pause.]

Mr. McGirt. I basically do the best I can to keep track of every-
thing that is paid to me, and as far as all the expenses go. They
show me everything, and I go over everything, because if they give
it to me, I'm kind of irresponsible, and I'll misplace it. But they
have everything in writing, and they show me everything that goes
to expenses and the checks to make sure everything evens out.

Senator Roth. Do you get a written report after each fight?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, I usually do, yes. I have them with the ac-
countant.

Senator Roth. You were asked to produce such records by a Sub-
committee subpoena, but your attorney indicated you could not
find any such records; is that correct?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, it is.

Senator Roth. And your accountant is the same accountant that
Al Certo and Alfred Certissimo, Inc. uses?

Mr. McGirt. Yes.

Senator Roth. Mr. McGirt, do you on occasion receive cash pay-
ments from Mr. Certo and Mr. Weiner?

Mr. McGirt. As far as

Senator Roth. Do you receive cash payments from either Mr.
Certo or Mr. Weiner?

Mr. McGirt. After the fight, you mean, or

Senator Roth. At any time.

Mr. McGirt. Oh, like if I need money for myself while we re
training, yes; they would give me a check, and I'd go cash the
check.

114

Senator Roth. You heard staff testimony about Stu Weiner writ-
ing checks to you, then endorsing your name

Mr. McGirt. Right.

Senator Roth [continuing]. And then depositing them into his
own account, or the Al Certissimo, Inc. account. Were you aware of
this practice?

Mr. McGirt. Well, he would write "for deposit only" just to show
that I received the money. This way, you have a copy of the check.

Senator Roth. Are you saying you're receiving cash through such
a transaction?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, because it's not for a large amount of money.

Senator Roth. You say not for large amounts of money. That one
is for $2,000. Would you consider that a large amount of money?

Mr. McGirt. No.

Senator Roth. You would not consider that a large amount of
money?

Mr. McGirt. No.

Senator Roth. What would you consider a large amount of
money?

Mr. McGirt. Twenty thousand, fifteen thousand.

Senator Roth. So, did you get $2,000 cash for that check?

Mr. D'Chiara. It would be helpful if you could show us a copy of
the check and the date

Senator Roth. It's right behind you on the board.

Mr. D'Chiara. If you have any present recollection of Check No.
1841 from November of 1991; if not, I don't want you to testify
about things that you don't recall.

Mr. McGirt. No, I don't recall exactly what I used it for, to be
honest with you; that's like 2 years ago. I've had a lot of fights
since then, so my memory bank is kind of short.

Senator Roth. Well, according to the endorsement of that check,
it was endorsed by Stuart Weiner into his personal account. So how
did you get the money?

Mr. McGirt. Well, I don't remember. That was November 29th,
correct, of 1991?

Senator Roth. Yes.

Mr. McGirt. That was right around when I was fighting for the
title. So my mind at the time wasn't on what the money was going
to at that time.

Senator Roth. Well, why would Mr. Weiner put the check in his
own account?

Mr. McGirt. You'll have to ask him that one. I couldn't answer
that one — of course, around fight time, he doesn't usually bother
me because I'm usually grouchy.

Senator Roth. Now, are you familiar with a Joseph "JoJo" Cor-
ozzo?

Mr. McGirt. In which aspect familiar?

Senator Roth. Do you know who he is?

Mr. McGirt. I know him just as a friend of Stuey's.

Senator Roth. Have you met him?

Mr. McGirt. Yes.

Senator Roth. Did Stu Weiner introduce you to "JoJo" Corozzo?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, he did.

115

Senator Roth. Has Mr. Corozzo ever watched you train or
watched you box?

Mr. McGirt. Well, he watched me train once when I was train-
ing in Florida. My training was open to the public, and he hap-
pened to be there one day, and he just came over and told me
"Good workout," and that was basically it.

Senator Roth. Did Mr. Corozzo or Mr. Weiner ever ask you to
attend the viewing of a tape of one of your past fights at Choices
bar, now called City Limits, in the Ozone Park area of Queens?

Mr. McGirt. Which date was that, may I ask?

Senator Roth. It's in New York.

Mr. D'Chiara. No. What date was the question, Senator?

Senator Roth. The question was did Mr. Corozzo or Mr. Weiner
ever ask you to attend the viewing of a tape of one of your past
fights at Choices bar

Mr. McGirt. To the best of my recollection, Stuey has asked me,
yes.

Senator Roth. So the answer was yes. When was ihat?

Mr. McGirt. That would have to be after the Simon Brown fight,
either December of 1991 or January of 1992.

Senator Roth. Do you know a person named Howie Santos?

Mr. McGirt. Howie Santos? No.

Senator Roth. Do you know Ronnie "One Arm" Trueechio?

Mr. D'Chiara. If you could perhaps spell it, Senator.

Senator Roth. T-r-u-e-e-c-h-i-o. Ronnie "One Arm."

Mr. McGirt. No.

Senator Roth. He owns Choices Bar.

Mr. McGirt. I've never heard of Choices.

Senator Roth. Was "JoJo" Corozzo at that tape showing you at-
tended at City Limits?

Mr. McGirt. As far as I recall — I can't remember — there were
like 200, 300 people in there. It was really crowded, and a lot of
people were congratulating me after the fight, and I didn't really
stay too long.

Senator Roth. Were you aware they were charging $100 per
person to attend that taping?

Mr. McGirt. No, because I brought a crew of people with me,
and we all just walked in.

Senator Roth. Are you aware that "JoJo" Corozzo is a soldier in
the Gambino organized crime family?

Mr. McGirt. Only from the newspapers, when I saw it in the
papers; that was about it.

Senator Roth. Do you know if "JoJo" Corozzo receives any por-
tion of your boxing earnings or has any financial interest in you?

Mr. McGirt. No.

Senator Roth. Have you ever heard allegations about Stu Weiner
being associated with organized crime?

Mr. McGirt. Not until now.

Senator Roth. Are you aware that Mr. Weiner is named as a
member of the Corozzo crew of the Gambino organized crime
family in an indictment handed down by the Manhattan D.A.'s
office on November 11, 1992?

Mr. McGirt. Just when I read that, that's when I knew it. Other
than that, I didn't know.

116

Senator Roth. At this time, do you have questions, Senator
McCain?

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McGirt, I have watched you fight on many occasions. I have
admired your skills, I have admired your courage.

Mr. McGirt. Thank you.

Senator McCain. Part of the focus of these hearings is consider-
ing legislation which, frankly, is primarily aimed at protecting
people like you from being exploited by undesirable elements, from
boxing under conditions which may cause you severe injury, and
frankly, cleaning up a sport which in the view of many Americans
is not performing in the best interest not only of the American
public but individuals such as yourself. And I hope that you under-
stand that in the context of the questions that are being asked of
you today.

Mr. McGirt. Right.

Senator McCain. I watched you fight in your last fight, and you
lost that fight. I watched the post-fight interview, and you stated
that your shoulder had gone out in one of the early rounds and
that you had been basically fighting one-armed in that fight. Is
that correct?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, it is.

Senator McCain. There were numerous stories in the media
prior to that fight that you had a damaged shoulder. Is that cor-
rect?

Mr. McGirt. Yes.

Senator McCain. And you chose to go into that fight, and the
outcome of that fight was that you were unable to perform to your
fullest capability, and you took a lot of punishment because of the
fact that you were incapacitated to some degree. Is that correct?

Mr. McGirt. I didn't take any punishment; I wouldn't say that. I
think I did pretty good fighting with the conditions I was under.

Senator McCain. Well, I think you did magnificently

Mr. McGirt. Thank you.

Senator McCain [continuing]. But the fact is you took more pun-
ishment than you would have if you'd had the use of your other
arm.

Mr. McGirt. Oh, most definitely, but that all came from — you
understand I had two MRIs done, and three doctors read the MRI,
and they all told me all I had was tendinitis. So if I have three doc-
tors who are supposed to be professionals and know what they are
doing, saying, "It is tendinitis; you can do it," I've got to take their
word on it. But after the fight, we found out it was more than that,
so before the fight, Al had sat me down and said, "Buddy, look, if
you hurt, don't go through with this fight, because your title means
everything to you; you worked hard to get there."

But I looked at it in the aspect that I've worked hard for 11
years to get where I've gotten. Previous to the Pernell Whitaker
fight and the Simon Brown fight where I finally made money, the 9
years before that, nobody gave me nothing. I worked hard to get
there. So if a doctor tells me I had tendinitis, I wasn't going to turn
down the opportunity. I had to take the chance. And I told Al,
"Look, my arm feels good. I'm going to do the best I can. I'm going
in there and give it all I got." And unfortunately, my arm didn't

117

hold up. After the fourth round, it went on me, and I was really
concerned. At one time, he wanted to stop the fight, but by me
being a fighter and a champion, I said, "Look, Al, I gotta go out
there and do what I gotta do."

So it's like no one forced me into doing it. The decision I made
was my own.

Senator McCain. Mr. McGirt, I understand exactly what you are
saying, and I watched you say that on television. But let me tell
you the appearance here. The word is out all over that Buddy
McGirt has a very badly damaged shoulder — that was carried in
the media, it was talked about before the fight started — and yet
there were, quote, three doctors who gave you MRI. Those doctors
were wrong, weren't they?

Mr. McGirt. Yes. We found that afterwards.

Senator McCain. OK. Those doctors were wrong.

Mr. McGirt. Right.

Senator McCain. It's a little bit like some other professions — you
can kind of shop around. And I think the fact is that if you had
gotten the right kind of diagnosis — because of what happened
during the fight, if you'd gotten the proper diagnosis that you
wouldn't have been in that fight, at least at that time.

Mr. McGirt. But these were orthopedic surgeons. The doctor who
discovered the injury, Dr. Orcheck, he said that it's a very hard
injury to find. As a matter of fact, when he read the MRI, he just
said that I had a tear, but when he opened me up, he said it was
worse than that. So even he couldn't really diagnose it, and from
what I hear, he's the best.

So you've got to understand, you know — you have to put yourself
in the fighter's position — when you work hard all your life, and
you see other fighters getting the big breaks, and you know deep
down in your heart that you're better than they are, and you're
breaking your back and your butt every day to get there, and
you're right there, and all they tell you is you've got tendinitis, you
have to take that chance sometimes. Sometimes you have to do
things you don't want to do to get what you want in life. And this
was my chance, and I had to take it.

Senator McCain. Mr. McGirt, I fully understand and appreciate
what you did. I believe that almost any person of your caliber and
proven courage would do exactly the same thing. I don't think it
was your responsibility. I think it was somebody else's responsibil-
ity to give you the kind of examination, and I happen to believe the
state of the art of medicine is that they could have detected that,
and I believe that what is required in boxing is the kind of exami-
nation which would have told you that the risk of re-injuring — or
injuring, depending on — was very great and that you should wait.

I also understand that part of the motivation is what is your
chance to get a big fight with that kind of purse and that kind of
publicity if you have to step back. And there have been times, as
you and I know, that fighters have had to cancel fights and never
had the opportunity again.

Mr. McGirt. But if you have three orthopedic surgeons that tell
you it's tendinitis, three different ones, you have a tendency to be-
lieve that the doctors are supposedly right, because they are doc-
tors, and that's their job. And they're reading the MRIs, and

118

they're telling me, "Buddy, this is what it is, it's only tendinitis,"
and they show me the MRIs. And Dr. Orcheck read the same MRIs
that they read, and he detected it. So it was a case of listening to
these three doctors and doing my therapy, and then I got examined
a week before the fight by the commission doctor — he examined
me, also. And I told him myself that the week he examined me was
my best week. That was the week that my arm felt the best.

Senator McCain. Well, Mr. McGirt, the fact is — and this is the
appearance, as I said — you had an injury. The boxing commission
decided that you — did you not let the New York commission doctor
see your medical records before the fight?

Mr. McGirt. They had access to everything if they wanted it. My
mind was just on the fight. They had the doctors' names that had
everything. All they had to do was call the doctors. Now, whether
they did that, I can't say; I don't know if they did that or not.

Senator McCain. OK. Look, I understand exactly what you're
saying, and I understand your response, but I happen to believe
that if we'd had the proper kind of oversight of your business that
it would have spared you from having this kind of sequence of
events that you went through, because I'm sure you still believe
that you would have won that fight if you'd had the proper use of
both arms.

Mr. McGirt. Most definitely. I know in my heart — now that my
arm is fixed and I've had the surgery, I know that if my arm was
better, I would have knocked him out. But it's too late now. That's
dead and gone. So now I've got to think ahead and just focus on
getting my title back, getting my career back on track.

Senator McCain. What we are trying to do in this legislation
that Senator Roth and Senator Nunn have been involved in for a
long time now is to put in the kind of safeguards that would pre-
vent a recurrence of what happened to you, Mr. McGirt. And orga-
nized crime is one part of this issue. There is story after story of
boxers who have fought with injuries, some that are horrendous
stories, who were not physically prepared to fight and were severe-
ly injured or even killed in the ring because we don't have the
proper oversight.

I don't expect you to agree with that, but those are facts.

Mr. McGirt. But you also have football players who play with
broken ankles and broken hands, broken thumbs; they play, also,
and they shoot up certain drugs to withstand the pain, whereas as
fighters, we can't do that. We have to take drug tests. We have to
go in there and fight with the pain. So if that's the case for boxing,
it should be like that with all other sports, shouldn't it?

Senator McCain. I certainly agree with you, Mr. McGirt, but I
would think that for the numbers of people who are contestants,
and the deaths and serious injury that have resulted by the nature
of your sport, you would find it far, far overshadows any other ath-
letic event.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. McGirt.

Mr. McGirt. Thank you.

Chairman Nunn. I'll yield to Senator Dorgan.

Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

119

Mr. McGirt, I was going to ask some questions similar to the
questions that Mr. McCain asked you. I, too, am an admirer of your
skills; I have watched you fight a number of times.

Mr. McGirt. Thank you.

Senator Dorgan. I have watched Iran Barkley fight a good
number of times. And I know that the two of you who come to tes-
tify here as champions or past champions of the sport are people
with extraordinary skill who have risen to the top of that sport.

You probably well know that as you came up, you were club
fighting opponents — people who are never going to get near your
level in boxing. These people are paid $100, $200, or $500 for a club
fight someplace, knocked out on a Friday night in one city; an op-
ponent to be knocked out

Mr. McGirt. I've never fought in one like that. I mean, every
one, from my first fight on, have been tough fights. You can check
the record books and check them out. That's one thing that Al
says, "I've got to see if you can fight." So I always rose to a higher
level each fight. If the opponent didn't live up to his capabilities —
sometimes they get stage fright — like, I've beaten fighters who
have come back to beat top 10 guys. So I wouldn't say that

Senator Dorgan. Well, I wasn't speaking specifically about your
situation except to say that a very small percentage of boxers are
going to rise to become world champions or to be part of the top 10
in the organizations. Many of the boxers are going to be in unpro-
tected club fight situations, being paid $200 and knocked out — I
don't know whether you know a guy named "Mouse"

Mr. McGirt. Well, I only received $200 my first pro fight.

Senator Dorgan. But the point is, with no safety standards, no
health standards essentially, no central registry of boxers, it is
really the only professional sport left in which the boxer is left un-
protected.

You could fight as a boxer tonight in New Jersey and show up
tomorrow night in Montana and be knocked out in both States, and
fight under two different names, and nobody is going to know the
difference. And the point that Mr. McCain was trying to raise is
that part of this is about corruption, and part of it is about safety.
We are trying to see if we can't do something to protect a legion of
boxers out there who are never going to be champions, but who are
going to get beaten and battered for a few hundred bucks and be
opponents all their lives, working in unsafe conditions and ending
up with zero — no money, nothing but heartache and physical trou-
bles.

I was going to ask the same kind of questions as Mr. McCain did.
I read the day of your fight in the newspaper here in Washington,
D.C. of your shoulder problems. I also watched your fight against
Simon Brown, who is a terrific fighter, really a world class, terrific
fighter, a great champion. You beat him. And then you fight an-
other great fighter in Pernell Whitaker. A newspaper story on the
day of your fight says you've got serious shoulder troubles. Well,
part of what I read in the newspaper isn't true as well, so who
knows what you read and what is true. But it turns out you go into
the ring that night. And I think Senator McCain is sort of asking
the question under what kind of financial pressure.

120

You went into the ring that night, and you did have shoulder
trouble, and Mr. Whitaker won. You had an operation a couple of
weeks later, and a newspaper article at that time said: "Certo is
alleged in one press report to have dissuaded McGirt from seeing a
private physician about his shoulder prior to the fight." I'd like to
ask you about the veracity of that. Certo was quoted as saying:
"Before the fight, I had the injury. I've still got the injury and a
million bucks."

Do you know of the veracity of that statement?

Mr. McGirt. No, I don't, but you have to know Al in order to —
certain statements he makes, you have to know him. Sometimes,
Al will make a statement, and the reporters — and nothing against
the reporters back there — but they will switch it around to make it
seem derogatory, because of the way that I went into the fight with
my injury; do you know what I mean?

But all along, if they would have been with me in training, they
would have seen the other side of Al Certo, where every day, he
would call me up to see how I was doing, and he would watch every
movement I made. If I squinted my eyes, his theory was: "What's
wrong? What did you hurt? What did you do? What's wrong? I'm
going to pull out of the fight. I'm going to do this." And I would
say, "No, Al. Don't worry. I'm going to be OK."

So whatever was said, I can't say if he said that or not, but by
knowing Al, sometimes Al makes crazy statements, but that's the
relationship we have.

Senator Dorgan. What were the consequences to you of pulling
out of this fight if you felt you were injured? If you had decided,
"I'm not 100 percent. I owe the people 100 percent to go in against
a guy like Whitaker. I'm going to pull out, and we're going to do a
rematch when I'm 100 percent." What would the consequences of
that have been to you?

Mr. McGirt. Me, personally, my personal feeling was that this
was my chance. It was here. I had been over so many obstacles to
get to where I could get that big fight. I didn't think much of Whi-
taker, and I still don't think much of Whitaker. And I said, now, if
my arm can hold up for at least 5 or 6 or 7 rounds, I can beat this
guy. That's the confidence I had in myself. But unfortunately, by
being misdiagnosed by the three doctors, the injury was worse than
they all expected and what I expected, and after the fourth round,
I had no use of my left arm.

And nothing was really guaranteed. So if they would have seen
the injury, they would have said I have to wait 6 months before I
could fight again.

Senator McCain. Senator Dorgan, could I interrupt? Did you just
say that you thought maybe it would only last 5 or 6 rounds?

Mr. McGirt. No. I said if my arm could hold up for 5 or 6
rounds, I could beat this guy, because after that, my plan was to go
to 5 or 6, and then after 6 rounds start using my hook. That was
my plan. Al said, "Use the hook early." I said, "Al, no. I've got to
get through the first 5 or 6 and use my hook afterwards." That was
my plan.

I was trying to hook after that, but it didn't register. It regis-
tered from my brain to this part, but the rest of the arm didn't reg-
ister.

121

Senator Dorgan. Let me ask another type of question. I appreci-
ate your responses so far, but they do raise a lot of questions about
the regulation of the sport and the health consequences to the par-
ticipants. And you are right — football players will play with a cast.
It is also true that a baseball pitcher with your injury may not be
pitching for a full year.

But let me ask another question, Mr. Certissimo, and perhaps
Mr. McGirt, you might also respond to this. The previous witness
discussed going to Las Vegas and, on behalf of a fighter — Snipes, I
think — trying to get Snipes a higher rating from one of the boxing
organizations so that they could make a proposed fight more mar-
ketable. He discovered with one of the boxing organizations
through his contacts, that, "Yes, we could get him ranked or rated
in the top 10. It would cost $10,000. Maybe for the Gotti family,
we'll do it for $5,000."

I'd like to ask if either of you have any knowledge of how fight-
ers are ranked by the three or four organizations out there that
are doing the ranking. Do you have any suspicion that there is
money changing hands under the table for better rankings in order
to market these fights?

Mr. Certissimo. Well, I could say "I think"; I really don't know. I
really don't know. If there was an incident where I'd heard it or I'd
seen it, I would tell you.

Mr. McGirt. I had to fight everybody to get to the top, so if they
wanted $10,000, we didn't have it. The cookie jar was empty.

Senator Dorgan. Tell me, Mr. McGirt, what role have the boxing
organizations played in your life? They are a mysterious, sort of in-
teresting group

Mr. McGirt. I feel the same way you do, and in my eyes, they
are still mysterious, and I'm a two-time world champion.

Mr. Certissimo. They still are; I agree with you.

Senator Dorgan. Well, they have an enormous influence on your
life in the sense of how they rank you, who you are able to fight,
and so on, and whether the fight is marketable. And I don't under-
stand very much about the WBO, WBA, WBC. I have asked one of
them for some information about who they are, how do they oper-
ate, what do they do, and I've never even gotten a response, not
even a letter saying "Thanks for your inquiry."

Mr. McGirt. When I lost the title, I got dropped to like No. 12,
and I had to have 19 fights before I got another title fight, 20
fights; where some guys lose the title, and the next fight or two
fights later, they get a title fight. So I can't really say what hap-
pened. I know that for me, it hasn't been too good.

Senator Dorgan. Why do you think that happened to you?

Mr. McGirt. Maybe they don't like the way we dress, or they
don't like the way my manager makes suits; I don't know.

Senator Dorgan. May there be some other reasons?

Mr. Certissimo. There could be other reasons, but we don't really
know. Senator, you got so many organizations out there, and in my
eyes, they're all full of baloney. All they're doing is taking money
off the American people and the American fighter. But let's get rid
of these guys, OK? Instead of having 150 champions, let's have just
12; let's get rid of him, and we'll get rid of all those jobs. I mean,

65-875 0-93-5

122

that's what it's all about. The American public likes to be fooled. I
don't even know who is the champion half of the time myself.

Senator Dorgan. Which organization sanctioned the last bout
with Whitaker?

Mr. Certissimo. WBC.

Senator Dorgan. And what was the cost that was paid to the
WBC for that bout; can anybody tell me?

Mr. Certissimo. Mr. Goodman would know. I think it's 3 percent.
I'm not

Senator Dorgan. Three percent of the gross is paid to the organi-
zation?

Mr. Certissimo. No; the gross of our purse.

Senator Dorgan. I understand.

Mr. Certissimo. I believe that's it; I'm not too sure.

Senator Dorgan. Senator Roth has done, I think, an excellent
job in putting together a series of hearings to explore the role of
organized crime in boxing. We do know from history that there has
been an enormous role of organized crime in boxing back in the
early years. The question is, what has happened in recent times? I
commend Senator Roth for the work he has done on this, and I
know there are a number of other questions in the line of question-
ing that he was pursuing that he wants to complete. I have a
Democratic Caucus I am supposed to be at, so let me yield back the
time and thank the Senator.

Senator Roth. Thank you very much, Senator Dorgan.

I have a few more questions I'd like to ask you, Mr. McGirt. Did
anyone ask you to attend the trial of John Gotti?

Mr. McGirt. Which trial is this?

Senator Roth. Of John Gotti.

Mr. McGirt. Which trial?

Senator Roth. The last one.

Mr. McGirt. The last one, no. I went to one trial in 1989, I be-
lieve, when he was on trial.

Mr. D'Chiara. One day. Not the whole trial.

Mr. McGirt. Right; I went one day.

Senator Roth. And who asked you to attend that trial?

Mr. McGirt. Stuart Weiner.

Senator Roth. Did you in fact attend the trial?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, I did.

Senator Roth. Did you talk to John Gotti at the trial?

Mr. McGirt. Well, what happened was I was in the city, and
Stuart had beeped me and asked me to come there. And I went to
the trial first, and there was a long line, so I left, and he beeped
me again — I was in the city shopping — so I went back, and they
were having a break, and I was standing outside, and Gotti hap-
pened to be walking out, and I was standing against the wall, and
he came over and wished me luck in the future and told me he
thought I was a good fighter. And then after that, a reporter came
over and asked me what did he say, and I repeated the same thing.

Senator Roth. Why did you go to the trial?

Mr. McGirt. Because Stuart had asked me to come, and when he
had beeped me, I was already in Manhattan.

Senator Roth. Well, did you know who John Gotti was?

123

Mr. McGirt. Well, everybody knew him. I mean, every time
you|d pick up the paper, he was on the front page, and every time
you'd look at the news. But Stuey asked me because, he said, "You
can come along. He's a friend of mine." I said, "No problem. I'm in
the city." But if I was on Long Island, I would have said, "Stuey,
you've got a little problem. I'm not going."

Senator Roth. So you did it as a favor to Stuart?

Mr. McGirt. Yes. But I really wanted to see Bruce Cutler, be-
cause I think he's a good lawyer.

Senator Roth. Now, Mr. Gravano has testified that you and Al
Certo were present at the Ravenite Social Club on at least one oc-
casion. Have you ever been to the Ravenite Social Club?

Mr. McGirt. Yes, but not with Al Certo.

Senator Roth. Whom were you with?

Mr. McGirt. Stuart Weiner.

Senator Roth. Do you know Eddie Sciandra?

Mr. McGirt. I would have to see a picture of him. I can't
really — I can't see too good on that picture there.

Senator Roth. Scott, will you hand him the photo?

[Staff handing photograph to Mr. McGirt.] l

Mr. McGirt. If this is the guy, I met this guy back in 1986, but
he introduced himself as Eddie.

Senator Roth. Under what circumstances were you introduced to
him? Who introduced you to him?

Mr. McGirt. He introduced himself to me. I was at a wedding.

Senator Roth. Where was the wedding?

Mr. McGirt. In Staten Island, I believe.

Senator Roth. Had you heard that Mr. Sciandra is the acting
boss of the Bufalino organized crime family, or that he is in any
way connected with organized crime?

Mr. McGirt. Honestly, when he came to me, I thought he was an
old drunk, to be honest with you. [Laughter.]

Senator Roth. I think that's all the questions we have. We thank
you, Mr. McGirt.

Next, I'll ask Mr. Certo a series of questions.

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Mr. Certo, you are currently the co-manager
of

Mr. D'Chiara. Senator, could you wait until I shift over, so I can
sit next to my client?

Senator Roth. I think you can listen to the question while you
walk over.

Mr. Certo, are you currently the co-manager of Buddy McGirt?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, I am, sir.

Senator Roth. How long have you served as a manager?

Mr. Certissimo. Oh, since

Mr. D'Chiara. As best you can recall.

Mr. Certissimo [continuing]. As best I can recall, maybe the last
7 years or so, 6 years. I don't recall.

Senator Roth. Are you currently licensed as a boxing manager
in any State?

Exhibit No. 48 appears on page 265.

124

Mr. Certissimo. Yes.

Senator Roth. Where?

Mr. Certissimo. In New Jersey, New York, Nevada.

Senator Roth. Have you ever been denied a boxing license in any
State where you have applied?

Mr. Certissimo. No.

Senator Roth. In your deposition taken by the Subcommittee
staff, you testified that Stuart Weiner is the co-manager of Mr.
McGirt; is that correct?

Mr. D'Chiara. Senator, again, could we please have the page and
line number?

Senator Roth. Well, let me ask you

Mr. D'Chiara. You are referring to his deposition testimony, and
we have a right to know what page and what line you are referring
to.

Senator Roth. Page 39.

Mr. Certissimo. Yes.

Senator Roth. So is it correct that you and Mr. Weiner share in
the management responsibilities of Mr. McGirt?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Is it also correct that you and Mr. Weiner split
the 33 Vb percent manager's fee that's taken from Mr. McGirt's
earnings?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, but it never comes to that amount. It's a lot
less. My fighters always got the better part of the moneys.

Senator Roth. To understand how this works, let me use a recent
example. On March 6th, Mr. McGirt fought in New York for a mil-
lion dollar purse; is that correct?

Mr. Certissimo. That's right, sir.

Senator Roth. What was the manager's share of the March 6th
fight?

Mr. D'Chiara. To the extent you know.

Mr. Certissimo. To the best of my knowledge, there is expense
that comes off the top, right off the top, and then after that, it be-
comes 33 Vb.

Senator Roth. So all the expenses are taken out of Buddy's purse
first; is that true?

Mr. Certissimo. Off the top.

Senator Roth. Off the top?

Mr. Certissimo. Of the top of the million dollars.

Senator Roth. How much did that amount to, roughly?

Mr. Certissimo. I forget the full amount. I don't think we got a
complete rundown. Stuart is still working on that because those
bills are still coming in from credit cards or whatever. But anyhow,
it's all there. Oh — how much of the money — I would say maybe

Mr. D'Chiara. Just an approximation.

Mr. Certissimo [continuing]. I really don't know. Maybe $200,000,
$250,000.

Senator Roth. Expenses ran up to $200,000, $250,000?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes.

Senator Roth. What was the nature of those expenses?

Mr. Certissimo. Well, first of all, let's go back to my counselor,
Mr. D'Chiara. There was a time that negotiations were sort of
broken down with HBO, and maybe there was a little strain taking

125

place, and I just ran out of gas. At a function where I was being
honored as manager of the year, that's the very first time I met
Mr. D'Chiara, and he calmed me down or whatever. And he said,
"Look, let me see if I can still make this particular fight," that
they had in mind, and I agreed for his service if he was able to put
the

Senator Roth. Time is running out, and I'd like to ask a more
specific question as to what expenses were involved.

Mr. Certissimo. Oh, OK. Yes, I can break it down. OK. Mr.
D'Chiara got $50,000. Mr. John Williams got $25,000. He's a fellow
that works with me in the gym, and he is a companion of Buddy
McGirt; he runs with him, he sees that he does the right thing
early in the morning. And there's my cornermen — they got $10,000
apiece — Mr. Milano and Mr. Howie Albert. And there is the ex-
pense of the hotels and the eating — it runs into money — sparring
partners. It's all done by check.

Senator Roth. And all that comes out of Buddy's purse?

Mr. Certissimo. It all comes off the top, yes.

Senator Roth. Off the top?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes. And if you would see — that's why I can't
understand — let me explain something, getting back to the
checks

Senator Roth. Let me go on with the line of questioning.

Mr. Certissimo. Anybody that worked for us, anybody, like our
cornermen, they don't have the capability of cashing a check — like
Mr. Williams, I believe, doesn't have the capability of cashing
maybe a $5,000 or a $10,000 check — so we would make out a check
to his name, and we would cash it for him, and we would deposit
that check in the bank. That's the way we operated our business.

Senator Roth. Now I'd like to go back to the line of questioning.
Under your current arrangement, what did you and Weiner receive
out of the March 6th fight?

Mr. Certissimo. I don't know. Stuart didn't break it down. But I
think we got $126,000 apiece. I'm not too sure about that.

Senator Roth. You don't know specifically?

Mr. Certissimo. No, I really don't. I didn't get the countdown
yet.

Senator Roth. As I understand your deposition testimony, on
page 40, all the money that Mr. McGirt earns goes directly into the
checking account of a corporation called Alfred Certissimo, Inc. Is
that correct?

Mr. Certissimo. That's right, sir.

Senator Roth. And do you control this company?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, I do.

Senator Roth. And you and Mr. Weiner and Mr. McGirt are paid
your shares of Mr. McGirt's purses from this account; is that cor-
rect?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. You testified at your deposition on pages 65 and
112 that Mr. Weiner has full check- writing authority with the Cer-
tissimo, Inc. account. Is that correct?

Mr. Certissimo. What do you mean by "full authority"?

Senator Roth. That he can write a check.

126

Mr. Certissimo. Well, with my permission. In other words, the
day of a fight, if we have to write a check for

Senator Roth. But the check doesn't require your signature, does
it?

Mr. Certissimo. No; no, it doesn't.

Senator Roth. And you also testified that Mr. Weiner commonly
writes checks to himself on the Alfred Certissimo account. Is that
correct?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes. He would write whatever he has coming to
him, part of that 33 Vs. He has that coming to him. He'll write a
check for himself, or he will write a check for me.

Senator Roth. Mr. Certo, you also testified at your deposition
that Mr. Weiner determines how to divide Buddy McGirt's boxing
earnings after a given fight. Is that correct? That's on page 65.

Mr. Certissimo. No, that's not correct.

Mr. D'Chiara. What line, Senator? I'd like to have the line refer-
ence on that, please.

Mr. Rinzel. Lines 15 through 17.

Mr. D'Chiara. And where does it say that Stuey Weiner — could
you just show us where you get that from?

Mr. Rinzel. The answer was: "Well, I gave him" — referring to
Stuey Weiner — "the power to sign checks. In other words, when we
have a fight, he has to pay the expenses for the restaurants or cor-
nermen or whoever helped us out. If I'm not doing it, he does it.
That's it. He makes out the breakdown maybe of Buddy's purse,
what we get and whatever."

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, right, whether it's him or me.

Mr. D'Chiara. I think you have mischaracterized the deposition
testimony.

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, whether it's me or Stuey. I think that's
what a partnership is; they've got to help each other. So if I can't
do it, it's Stu Weiner.

Senator Roth. In your deposition, you say, "He makes out the
breakdown maybe of Buddy's purse, what we get and whatever."
What do you mean by that?

Mr. D'Chiara. If you read the sentence before that, Senator

Senator Roth. We'll ask the witness to respond.

Mr. D'Chiara. Read the whole thing in context. Start here.

Mr. Certissimo. OK. "In other words, what I'm trying to say,
when we have a fight, he has to pay the expense for the restaurant
or the cornermen or whatever help. If I'm not doing it, he does it.
That's it. He makes out the breakdown of Buddy's purse, what we
get and whatever." It's either me or him. And if he ever made a
check more than what it was supposed to be, he'd hear it.

Senator Roth. Mr. Certo, Bobby Goodman of Madison Square
Garden paid Stu Weiner $40,000 in cash as part of Mr. McGirt's
purse for the Simon Brown fight in Las Vegas, Nevada. Were you
aware of that cash payment?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes. What Bobby does, he'll call me, or whether
it is Pat Fleming, assistant matchmaker — "How much cash do you
need?" And I would say we might need this much, or we might
need that much, because cornermen have to go home with the
money — every amount of cash money that we give out is made into

127

a check, and the person signs it, and we in turn deposit that in the
bank.

Senator Roth. Is it common to get payments — in this case,
$40,000— in cash?

Mr. Certissimo. Oh, yes. Why not? Out of $1 million — or, I be-
lieve we got $750,000, $800,000.

Senator Roth. What was the cash used for?

Mr. Certissimo. Well, you had to give moneys to the cornermen,
sparring partners — the hotels, we had no expense with that — my
own personal money, his personal money. Maybe we did a little
gambling over there. It was our money.

Senator Roth. Was it training money?

Mr. Certissimo. No, it wasn't training money. It was moneys
that were

Senator Roth. But you used the money for your personal gam-
bling?

Mr. Certissimo. No. I don't know if I ever lost that much to use
that kind of money. But anyhow, what I'm trying to say is the
$40,000, you're looking for a breakdown — it's for the cornermen or
whoever we need the money for. If you add it up, $40,000, I believe
Buddy— I don't know if you took $10,000 or $15,000, but it is all ac-
countable. In other words, if we got $800,000 for one particular
fight, and that's the price, you would see that amount deposited or
accounted for in the accounts.

Senator Roth. But why would you take this money in cash?

Mr. Certissimo. Because being in Vegas for 2 or 3 weeks, I'm
sure nobody had money after a while. You might have needed it to
go home with. Buddy always needs money. He probably, I think,
took $15,000 — I'm not sure. Do you recall?

Senator Roth. So part of the money was used for your expenses?

Mr. Certissimo. Not my expenses. In other words, any moneys I
took out of that $40,000— if I took out $5,000, that was $5,000 that
had to be deducted out of my share of the 33 Va percent.

Senator Roth. But that money could have been used for your
personal expenses.

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, or whatever.

Senator Roth. Now, Mr. Certo, to your knowledge, is Mr. Weiner
currently licensed as a boxing manager in any State?

Mr. Certissimo. In any State?

Senator Roth. Yes.

Mr. Certissimo. I don't believe so, sir.

Senator Roth. Isn't it true that Mr. Weiner is not involved in the
traditional activities of a boxing manager?

Mr. Certissimo. That's a good question. What are the tradition-
al?

Senator Roth. What would you say are the traditional activities?

Mr. Certissimo. To make fights, to train the fighter. Here's a
man with one leg. We got to be pretty friendly, and he's a decent
guy. He was the one that brought me to Buddy McGirt from the
original time. I just have a compassion for a person like that.

Senator Roth. My time is up.

Senator McCain.

Senator McCain. No questions.

Senator Roth. Senator Cohen.

128

Senator Cohen. Just one question, Mr. Certo. The staff testified
earlier, and they have prepared a written statement that indicated
that in the December 1991 Buddy McGirt-Simon Brown fight that
you and Buddy McGirt signed two separate contracts with Robert
Goodman. Is that

Mr. Certissimo. What do you mean by two separate contracts?

Senator Cohen. Did you sign two contracts with him concerning
the McGirt fight?

Mr. Certissimo. For that one particular fight? No. Just one.

Senator Cohen. One contract.

Mr. D'Chiara. As best you recall.

Mr. Certissimo. As best I recall, I think it was only one — one
Nevada contract.

Senator Cohen. All right. That's what I was getting at. One
Nevada contract.

Mr. Certissimo. One Nevada contract, yes.

Senator Cohen. Tell me how that worked. The information that
we had is that you filed in Nevada — a State that prohibits, as I un-
derstand it, option contracting — a contract that gave McGirt
$625,000 with no option for future fights, correct?

Mr. Certissimo. OK. The original time that we were supposed to
fight Simon Brown, we were down in Florida. After 3 weeks, I
think, the fight was postponed. We had taken out $75,000 for train-
ing expense, OK — I think it was $75,000; I don't remember — and
then the fight was postponed. And then the fight was put on again,
I don't know, a month, 2 months, whatever. Whether we took addi-
tional money, I don't recall. OK. Now, the fight took place, and we
won the fight. Bobby said to me, "Al, would you mind if I held back
$50,000 because it would make us" — something with the budget —
"it would make us look good with Madison Square Garden." He felt
that when the fight was made that they wanted $100,000. We nego-
tiated, and it went down to $50,000, and that's what we agreed
upon.

He said, "I'll hold back $50,000 for bookkeeping purposes, and
then on your next fight, I would give it to you."

I said, "No problem." There's enough money there. I don't think
I waited that long, though. I started screaming I wanted my
money, and then we got it.

Senator Cohen. What I was really concerned about was the con-
tract that was filed in Nevada, Nevada prohibits option contract-
ing; is that right? I don't know. I'm asking you.

Mr. Certissimo. What do you mean by "option contract"?

Senator Cohen. Options for future fights.

Mr. Certissimo. No, I don't think any State has that law.

Senator Cohen. Nevada does not have that prohibition?

Mr. D'Chiara. To the best of your knowledge.

Mr. Certissimo. It could have been — I don't know.

Senator Cohen. To the best of your knowledge.

Mr. Certissimo. I really couldn't say.

Mr. D'Chiara. Al's the manager, not the promotor. It's usually
the promoter that takes care of that.

Senator Cohen. OK. He's in the fight business. He knows more
than I do. I'm trying to find out.

129

So, to your knowledge, Nevada does not prohibit option contract-
ing?

Mr. Certissimo. I really couldn't answer that question.

Senator Cohen. OK. Was there a separate contract filed in New
York which awarded McGirt $625,000 plus $75,000 in training ex-
penses for the Brown fight?

Mr. Certissimo. Yes, that was probably it.

Senator Cohen. OK. Did that include any option, to your knowl-
edge, on five future McGirt fights?

Mr. Certissimo. I don't know what took place there. If you want
me to go back

Senator Cohen. I just want you to tell me what you know. I don't
want you to speculate.

Mr. Certissimo. No, I really don't know what agreement was
signed between him and Don King, or whatever.

Senator Cohen. Or Mr. Goodman?

Mr. Certissimo. Or Mr. Goodman.

Senator Cohen. All right.

Mr. Certissimo. I was told there was, I believe, five options he
would exercise if he wanted to. That's all — but I never saw the con-
tract.

Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question for
Mr. McGirt.

Senator Roth. Senator McCain.

Senator McCain. Mr. McGirt, you've made several million dol-
lars in your successful boxing career. I think that's correct, isn't it?

Mr. McGirt. Several million?

Senator McCain. Yes.

Mr. McGirt. I don't know. I don't know where it's at if I did.

Senator McCain. Well, I guess that's the point of my question.
Do you have money — and you don't have to answer this question if
you don't want to — but do you have some money saved?

Mr. McGirt. Oh, most definitely, yes.

Senator McCain. So you believe you have been able to retain sig-
nificant amounts of the money that you have earned?

Mr. McGirt. Oh, yes. What you have to understand is that I
watch my money very carefully. I'm cheaper than free rent. Noth-
ing comes by me without me seeing it. If they hand me a piece of
paper that says "Miscellaneous," I want to know what "Miscellane-
ous" means. You just can't hand it to me and say, "Oh, Buddy, this
is miscellaneous." I want to know what it means. And they keep
track, and I keep track of everything — and if I don't, my mother
does.

Senator McCain. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Roth. Mr. Certo, are you aware that Mr. Weiner is
named as a member of the Corozzo crew of the Gambino organized
crime family in an indictment handed down by the Manhattan dis-
trict attorney's office?

Mr. Certissimo. I don't know who — I am not aware of anything
like that— Gambino, Gamschmino, whoever these guys are. I know
Stuey as a decent person, and that's as far as I know about Stu
Weiner. We don't have any social things going on, but we are tight

130

when it comes to Buddy McGirt; we are totally in agreement. Any-
thing for the better of Buddy McGirt.

Senator Roth. Are you familiar with an individual named
Joseph "Jo Jo" Corozzo?

Mr. Certissimo. Well, the very first time that I believe I met
Joseph Corozzo was when we were training — I don't know if it was
the first or second time we trained down in Florida. That was the
very first time I met him. That was the Simon Brown fight.

Senator Roth. What year was that?

Mr. Certissimo. That would be 1990.

Senator Roth. Nineteen ninety. And who introduced you to Mr.
Corozzo?

Mr. Certissimo. Ninety-one. Excuse me. That was in 1991.

Senator Roth. Nineteen ninety-one.

Mr. Certissimo. Who — what — excuse me?

Senator Roth. Who introduced you to Mr. Corozzo?

Mr. Certissimo. Stu Weiner. He introduced me as his boyhood
friend; they went to school together or something — I don't know.

Senator Roth. Are you aware that Mr. Corozzo is an alleged sol-
dier in the Gambino organized crime family?

Mr. Certissimo. Did you hear mister whatever his name is say
that I was an organized crime figure, too?

Senator Roth. Yes. Would you answer

Mr. Certissimo. I don't know.

Senator Roth. Would you answer my question, please?

Mr. Certissimo. No, I didn't know anything like that.

Senator Roth. You are not aware of that?

Mr. Certissimo. I am not aware of it. I've seen it in the papers,
and that's as far as I know.

Senator Roth. Have you and Mr. Weiner ever discussed Mr.
Weiner's relationship with Mr. Corozzo?

Mr. Certissimo. Well, naturally, he talked about his friend, that
he was a very close friend; they grew up together.

Senator Roth. Did Mr. Weiner's relationship with Mr. Corozzo
concern you?

Mr. Certissimo. Not at all. [Pause.] Why doesn't Mr. Rinzel ask
me the questions?

Senator Roth. Mr. Certo, have you ever visited the Ravenite
Social Club?

Mr. Certissimo. Not to my knowledge.

Senator Roth. Are you denying ever having visited it?

Mr. Certissimo. No, I was never in the place, no.

Senator Roth. You were never in the place?

Mr. Certissimo. No.

Senator Roth. All right. Thank you, Mr. Certo.

Mr. Certissimo. Thank you.

Mr. D'Chiara. Can we leave now, or do you want us to stay?

Senator Roth. Yes. Mr. Certo and Mr. McGirt, if you want to
leave, that's satisfactory.

Mr. Certissimo. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McGirt. Thank you.

Mr. D'Chiara. Thank you, sirs.

Senator Roth. Mr. Weiner, would you please state your full
name?

131

Mr. Weiner. Stuart Weiner.

Senator Roth. Would you introduce your counsel once more?

Mr. Weiner. Edwin Schulman.

Senator Roth. Mr. Weiner, are you familiar with an individual
named Joseph "Jo Jo" Corozzo?

Mr. Weiner. At this time, Senator, there is an indictment pend-
ing in the State of New York, naming me as an unindicted co-con-
spirator, alleging that I am a member and/or associate of an orga-
nized crime family.

Based upon this circumstance, I respectfully refuse to answer
any further questions and assert my Fifth Amendment privilege.

Senator Roth. Are you aware that Mr. Corozzo is a soldier in the
Gambino organized crime family?

Mr. Weiner. I assert my Fifth Amendment.

Senator Roth. Mr. Weiner, are you currently the co-manager,
along with Al Certo, of boxer James "Buddy" McGkt?

Mr. Weiner. I assert my Fifth Amendment.

Senator Roth. Mr. Weiner, are you currently licensed as a
boxing manager in any State?

Mr. Weiner. I assert my Fifth Amendment.

Senator Roth. As I understand Mr. Al Certo's testimony, you are
entitled to a 15 percent share of Buddy McGirt's purse. Have you
ever made any payments from Buddy McGirt's purses to "Jo Jo"
Corozzo?

Mr. Weiner. I assert my Fifth Amendment.

Senator Roth. Did you ask Buddy McGirt to attend the trial of
John Gotti as a personal favor to you?

Mr. Weiner. I assert my Fifth Amendment.

Senator Roth. Mr. Weiner, do you intend to invoke your Fifth
Amendment rights in response to all other questions here today?

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Well, we are disappointed that you have not
chosen to answer our questions, but under the circumstances, you
are excused.

Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Roth. Our next witness is Edward Sciandra. Mr. Scian-
dra, if you would please come forward.

Mr. Sciandra, if you would remain standing and raise your right
hand, please. Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Sciandra. I do.

Senator Roth. Please be seated.

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD SCIANDRA

Senator Roth. Mr. Sciandra, do you have a prepared statement,
or a statement to make?

Mr. Sciandra. No, I don't have a statement, Senator.

Senator Roth. Mr. Sciandra, would you please give us your full
name?

Mr. Sciandra. Edward Sciandra.

Senator Roth. Mr. Sciandra, are you a member of, or have you
served as acting boss of the Bufalino organized crime family?

132

Mr. Sciandra. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds
that my answer may tend to incriminate me.

Senator Roth. Mr. Sciandra, Mr. Gravano's testimony indicated
that you at one time owned a financial interest in professional
boxer James "Buddy" McGirt. Is this correct?

Mr. Sciandra. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds
that my answer may tend to incriminate me.

Senator Roth. Mr. Sciandra, did you acquire an interest in Mr.
McGirt directly from Mr. McGirt or through one of his co-manag-
ers, Al Certo or Stuart Weiner?

Mr. Sciandra. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds
that my answer may tend to incriminate me.

Senator Roth. Mr. Gravano testified that you and "JoJo" Cor-
ozzo had a dispute as to which one of you was entitled to an inter-
est in Buddy McGirt's earnings. Is this true?

Mr. Sciandra. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds
that my answer may tend to incriminate me.

Senator Roth. Mr. Gravano has identified a videotape of himself
leaving the Ravenite Social Club with you and Mr. Corozzo. Mr.
Gravano has testified that the three of you had been discussing the
dispute between you and Mr. Corozzo over Buddy McGirt's earn-
ings. Do you recall this meeting?

Mr. Sciandra. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds
that my answer may tend to incriminate me.

Senator Roth. Mr. Sciandra, do you intend to invoke the Fifth
Amendment to all of the Subcommittee's questions?

Mr. Sciandra. Yes, Your Honor.

Senator Roth. In that case, you are excused at this time.

Mr. Sciandra. Thank you, sir.

Senator Roth. Our next witness is Robert Goodman. Mr. Good-
man is vice president of Madison Square Garden Boxing. I want to
thank Mr. Goodman for his willingness to assist the staff in the
course of its investigation and for his testimony here today. He
knows a great deal about both the promotion and broadcasting of
boxing today, and we look forward to his testimony.

Mr. Goodman, would you please remain standing and raise your
right hand? Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

Mr. Goodman. I do.

Senator Roth. Thank you. Will you please be seated and intro-
duce your counsel?

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GOODMAN, 1 VICE PRESIDENT, MADISON
SQUARE GARDEN BOXING; ACCOMPANIED BY KEN MUNOS,
GENERAL COUNSEL FOR MADISON SQUARE GARDEN

Mr. Goodman. Yes. With me is Ken Munos. He is the general
counsel for Madison Square Garden.

Senator Roth. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Goodman?

Mr. Goodman. Yes, I do, sir. I think everybody has a copy of our
statement which we prepared. I intend to read part of it.

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Goodman appears on page 158.

133

Senator Roth. Please feel free to summarize, and we will include
your statement in the record in its entirety.

Mr. Goodman. Thank you.

My name is Bob Goodman, and I am vice president and match-
maker for Madison Square Garden Boxing. Since we hosted our
first fight involving John L. Sullivan nearly a century ago, the
Garden has been an upstanding and conscientious member of the
boxing community.

To ensure our ability to continue to bring fights to the people of
New York City and other places around the world, we have served
as a promoter of boxing events in addition to our role as a world
class venue for boxing contests.

We are a promoter in the classic meaning of the term — we ar-
range matches and promote them. To facilitate our role in this en-
deavor, we enter into exclusive, long-term promotional agreements
with some fighters. In these contracts, which are common and es-
sential to the boxing industry, the promoter receives promotional
rights while providing the boxer with financial consideration and
guaranteed minimum purses with respect to future bouts. These
contracts benefit both the athletes and the promoters. They are
universally recognized as essential vehicles by which fighters are
able to develop their skills in a manner that will assure them fair
compensation while at the same time providing the promoter with
a fair opportunity to generate a return from its risk-intensive busi-
ness.

We serve sole as a promoter and venue for professional fights.
Our relationship with boxers is arm's-length, proper, and legal.
None of the concerns that have been expressed about promoter
conflicts of interest at previous hearings apply to Madison Square
Garden. We do not manage, train, or provide financial advice to
fighters with whom we deal.

As previously communicated to Senator Roth by Robert Gut-
kowski, president of Madison Square Garden, my company sup-
ports the creation of a Federal Boxing Commission to establish uni-
form national regulations to govern the sport of boxing. 1 We be-
lieve that the establishment of uniform standards can help protect
the health and safety of professional fighters. At the same time,
more effective regulation of boxing should inure to the benefit of
the many honest individuals and companies involved in boxing by
improving public confidence in the conduct of the sport.

Because our views are similar to those expressed before this Sub-
committee by Mr. Abraham of HBO Sports and Mr. Aresco of
ESPN 3 weeks ago, we will not cover the same ground in the inter-
est of time.

I personally and Madison Square Garden as a company have at
all times acted forthrightly and sought in good faith to fully
comply with all applicable regulatory provisions of the various
States in which we promote fights. We have also cooperated fully
with this Subcommittee and hope we have assisted your investiga-
tion.

1 Exhibit No. 24 is retained in the files of the Subcommittee.

134

I need not repeat the specific items in my statement, which I be-
lieve you have, regarding Buddy McGirt. I am prepared to answer
any questions that you may have concerning that.

Let me just for the record note that I have been in boxing for
many years — all my life, I have been a boxing degenerate, so to
speak, with my dad being in boxing. I was brought up in the train-
ing camps with the greats like Joe Louis and Ray Robinson and
Marcel Surdan. I truly love the sport. The sport is my life, it is my
business, and I am prepared to answer your questions.

Senator Roth. Thank you, Mr. Goodman.

As you pointed out, I have received a letter from Robert M. Gut-
kowski, president and chief executive officer of Madison Square
Garden, in which he endorses the need for a Federal Boxing Com-
mission.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Goodman. As one who, as you say, loves
the sport and is as much involved as anyone, why do you think
boxing has been unable to regulate itself as other sports do? Do you
believe a Federal commission can work with the State commissions
to improve the regulation of boxing?

Mr. Goodman. Well, Mr. Roth, something that is vitally needed
in the sport of boxing today is uniformity — certainly, within the
regulations and rules of the sport, within the medical standards,
within the cooperation and reciprocation between States, the forms
of proper identification and boxing passports. And it has been tried
by many others before, and we can't even get some of the States to
cooperate with each other, no less cooperate as a Nation for the
good of the sport. So I think this is direly needed in our sport
today, and welcome by most of the people who really care about
the sport.

I don't know what we can do regarding the world bodies of
boxing, the sanctioning bodies of boxing, because we are proposing
a national organization. That would have to be something that
could be worked out. There are pros and cons on the sanctioning
bodies. Certainly, world bodies need some form of legislation and
some rules and regulations and some form of rating system in
order to move their way up the line and become a champion. But I
am all for and am willing to participate in any of your efforts to
form a national commission. I have had some meetings with Con-
gressman Richardson on the same subject.

Senator Roth. I appreciate your interest and willingness to assist
in the effort. Let me ask you this. As you, I think, heard in earlier
testimony, the large purses are attracting an unsavory element. Do
you think a commission could be helpful in addressing this and
other problems?

Mr. Goodman. Absolutely — certainly with regard to fights held
in the United States.

Senator Roth. You mentioned the international organizations.
Let me ask you this. In boxing, particularly due to the importance
of U.S.-based television revenues, won't that give us some handle
on regulating these international bodies as well?

Mr. Goodman. Well, it may, but for an example, today, with the
exception of maybe HBO and Showtime and some rare pay-per-
view events, the television market is much greater outside the
United States than it is here in the United States today.

135

I just did a world championship fight involving one of my other
champions, Tracy Patterson, the son of Floyd Patterson, on ABC. It
was a wonderful fight, a wonderful fight, in Poughkeepsie, New
York, on the day of a blizzard. People showed up, and ABC raved
about the event, and yet our entire fee from ABC television, which
was a nationally-televised event, was only $75,000 or $76,500.

It is very difficult to put together world championship fights with
that kind of money coming from network television, who also do
far too few fights today. Very rarely is network television now
doing fights.

But overseas, if I chose to take Tracy Patterson overseas to
defend his title in France or Italy or maybe to the Orient, Tracy
Patterson might receive a purse of $175,000 to $200,000, because
television

Senator McCain. Why didn't you?

Mr. Goodman. Because Tracy chose not to. He went over to
defend his title in France, retained his title on a draw, but he felt
very uncomfortable being away from home and asked me to please
try and work it out with him to put his next fight here. We did
that, and I sat down with Tracy and Floyd, and we made Tracy a
partner in promotion and tried to maximize his revenues — in his
home town of Poughkeepsie; it is very close to his home.

Senator Roth. Senator McCain.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you,
the Patterson fight was one of the best that I have seen in a very
long time — in a very, very long time — on network television.

Mr. Goodman. Thank you.

Senator McCain. Someday, you can come back, and we can dis-
cuss the impact on the American people of having to "pay-per-
view" many of these very outstanding fights — but that's an issue
for another day.

Did you not know that there was a regulation in Nevada that
prohibited the so-called option contract?

Mr. Goodman. Well, regarding the option contract, first of all, I
am of the position that we have entered into an exclusive promo-
tional agreement with James "Buddy" McGirt, going back some 6
or 7 years ago, and it's a long-term agreement, and we have since
renewed it 2 or 3 times.

It is generally known throughout the business, including in the
State of Nevada, that all boxers who fight major fights and all
champions who defend titles in the State of Nevada have option
contracts or long-term agreements with somebody or with some
promoter. It is just a standard business practice that everyone is
aware of. I have promoted events in the State of Nevada, and they
license me, and I am still a member in good standing in the State
of Nevada. And that was just one event that we were doing in
Nevada. If that meant that we were in violation, then it would
appear that if Buddy McGirt were offered a fight in the State of
Nevada, I would have to say, "Gee, Buddy, we're going to fight in
Nevada. I have to break our contract, and we are no longer exclu-
sively involved with each other before we can fight" — and that's lu-
dicrous, that's absurd.

Senator McCain. But Mr. Goodman, it really didn't happen that
way. My understanding from your statement is that you did have a

136

long-term contract with him. You were in Nevada, and according
to you— and I am very curious about how these pressures were
brought to bear— "Don King made repeated requests for evidence
that MSG had the right to promote, and thereby to grant co-promo-
tion rights, to Mr. McGirt's next five matches. In the hectic days,
and under the intense pressure of pre-fight activities, I decided that
the five-bout provision in the New York contract should be entered
into with the thought that it could be shown to Mr. King and thus
allay his concerns."

You already had a contract with Mr. McGirt, right, a long-term
contract with him?

Mr. Goodman. Yes, I had a long-term promotional agreement.

Senator McCain. So you signed another one.

Mr. Goodman. King had asked me on repeated occasions to show
him where he was protected with his five option bouts. Even
though Don King and I had a contract, the nature of the promo-
tional agreement between Buddy McGirt and myself was none of
Don King's business.

Senator McCain. Do you mean you couldn't just say to Mr. King,
"Look, I've got a contract. We're having a fight. Take a hike"?

Mr. Goodman. That's what I eventually did, Mr. McCain,
and

Senator McCain. No, you didn't. You signed another contract.

Mr. Goodman. I signed the contract with Buddy McGirt and Al
Certo and decided at the zero hour that I didn't have to do this; I
shouldn't have done it. I didn't present it to Mr. King, didn't show
him the contract. It remained in our file. That's why

Senator McCain. But the fact is you did sign another contract.

Mr. Goodman. I did sign a contract, yes, and I did not file it with
anybody.

Senator McCain. So frankly, Mr. Goodman, there is a difference
between having a so-called option contract that's ongoing when a
fighter fights in the State of Nevada, and another thing to have a
contract and then sign another contract

Mr. Goodman. I still didn't believe that this violated Nevada
law, because we were concerned with one particular fight.

Senator McCain. Have you found out since that it was in viola-
tion?

Mr. Goodman. No. My position is that no, I don't believe that
violates Nevada law.

Senator McCain. I think we could get you someone from the
State of Nevada who would say that it is. But let me delve a little
deeper here.

It seems to me that this is an incredible display of power and in-
fluence on the part of Mr. King that would somehow motivate you
to take an action of this nature. Can you describe a little bit the
kind of power that Mr. King has in the boxing business?

Mr. Goodman. Mr. King does wield a great deal of power in the
boxing business, that's true. As you are aware, I did work for Mr.
King for a while. But the bottom line is I didn't ever show Mr.
King that contract. I chose not to. I felt that the long-term promo-
tional agreement that we had with Mr. McGirt was enough, and he
would have to accept that, and my contract with Don King Produc-
tion, where I guaranteed the services of McGirt's next five fights

137

that I would promote with Mr. King, was sufficient, and I never
gave Mr. King a copy of the other contract.

Senator McCain. Mr. Goodman, I don't mean to belabor the
issue, but according to the Nevada State Athletic Commission Reg-
ulations and Statutes, 467.112, "Contract between Promoter and
Boxer," No. 3, "A contract which provides that a boxer must fight
exclusively for one promoter or at his option is prohibited." I think
the regulations are fairly clear there.

Reading from your statement, you said, "I decided that the five-
bout provision in the New York contract should be entered into
with the thought that it could be shown to Mr. King and thus allay
his concerns. After executing the New York contract, I realized
that as a means of addressing Mr. King's concerns, it served no
purpose, in view of our long-term promotional agreement with
McGirt."

Does that mean that Mr. King just dropped his repeated requests
for evidence?

Mr. Goodman. No. First of all, Mr. King had only come in for a
press conference and then ran off again to some other site un-
known, and we had a few words, and King asked me about the five
options, and I just said, "Don, I have an exclusive promotional
agreement with Buddy McGirt that covers more than five bouts,
and that's enough. I have guaranteed his services."

Senator McCain. But in your statement, Mr. Goodman, you say,
"Don King made repeated requests for evidence that MSG had the
right to promote, and thereby to grant co-promotion rights, to Mr.
McGirt's next five matches."

Mr. Goodman. Well, I just didn't show him that.

Senator McCain. Did he make repeated requests?

Mr. Goodman. Yes.

Senator McCain. Had you heard of Mr. McGirt's injury before
the fight that he had with Mr. Whitaker?

Mr. Goodman. Before the

Senator McCain. Rumors that Mr. McGirt had

Mr. Goodman. Before the Leone fight, or

Senator McCain. Before the Whitaker fight.

Mr. Goodman. Yes, yes, yes. He had fought a fight for us in a
mandatory defense with Genero Leone, where his left arm was
very bad, and we at first tried to — the Whitaker fight was already
made — and we sat down with HBO trying to look for an alternative
date immediately following the Leone fight, before we ever held a
press conference to announce the Whitaker fight, and we had sent
Buddy for an MRI, and the MRI came back negative and that there
was no tear and that it was tendinitis. Even then, we still tried to
come up with a later date with HBO.

I went to the workout on a couple of occasions, and Buddy
McGirt exhibited the fact that he could throw his left hand, his left
hook. And with the pads on — and I think I was even quoted in
Mike Katz' story in the New York Daily News, who happened to be
at the gym that day in Jersey City — when the trainer had the pads,
which are catch mitts, and he was letting McGirt go through com-
binations on the catch mitts, and he started really kicking with
that left hook, and there was a snap and a pop, and it looked like

138

the McGirt of old, and out of exuberance, I just yelled, "Hallelu-
jah." And Katz had that in the paper.

But we didn't stop at that. We asked Buddy to take another MRI.
He was consulting with two doctors plus a chiropractor and a
sports therapist. And every day, he went through his paces, and he
didn't deter from the task at hand. And I had seen some of the
work he was doing, tossing balls around and throwing things, and
Seth Abraham of HBO called me, and he said, "Bobby, really, how
is Buddy's shoulder coming along? I want to make sure it's OK."
And I said, "So do I."

Al Certo and I had talked repeatedly about it, and I told Al that
if Buddy's shoulder was not at a point where he could throw a left
hook that I did not want to go through with the fight. The title was
too important, and I said we will find another date for the fight,
and if Whitaker goes away, so be it; we still have the world cham-
pionship, and maybe we can seek a Chavez fight at the time. As a
matter of fact, Don King had called at one point and said if you
pull out of the fight, maybe we can talk about Chavez.

We asked the doctors to follow it closely. New York State Athlet-
ic Commission chairman Randy Gordon called me and asked if he
could have Dr. Barry Jordan, his chief physician, go with him to
examine McGirt extensively. This was about 10 days or so before
the fight. We had our assistant in the office, my assistant, Carl
Miretti, take them to McGirt's gym, where Dr. Jordan went
through some extensive pressure-type tests with McGirt and ma-
nipulated the shoulder and watched him work, and he said that he
felt it was a green light. He called me back, and he said, "Listen,
we've done everything we could do to his shoulder to see if he could
use it, and we think it's 100 percent."

Senator McCain. But the fact is that his shoulder was not well,
and the fact is that he fought most of that fight with one hand.

Mr. Goodman. Absolutely.

Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Goodman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Roth. I'm going to call on Mr. Rinzel to ask some ques-
tions.

Mr. Rinzel. Mr. Goodman, I want to ask some questions about
the $40,000 cash payment after the McGirt-Simon Brown fight on
November 28th, 1991 in Las Vegas. You did provide to us a copy of
an undated memorandum from you to Al Certo, as I understand it,
saying that you had provided $40,000 in cash to Stu Weiner and
that you had him sign a receipt indicating that it was part of
Buddy McGirt's purse; is that correct? 1

Mr. Goodman. That's correct.

Mr. Rinzel. Why did you provide that $40,000 in cash, and how
did that work?

Mr. Goodman. Well, as a matter of form throughout our bouts
not only with Buddy McGirt, but with the other fighters, it is
common, and it is very common in the business, for them to ask for
a certain amount of the purse to be paid in cash, because many of
the people who work with them — for example, sparring partners,

1 Exhibit No. 33e appears on page 266.

139

trainers, cut men — and tip money to leave the hotel — many of the
people who have been away from home for months, maybe 2
months at a time, needed some cash to go home with, and they
wanted to be able to cash their checks for them. And it has just
been something that we felt was always something we would try
and accommodate them with, and in this case, we did.

Mr. Rinzel. Well, at one point you provided Subcommittee staff
with a Madison Square Garden check made out to Al Certissimo,
Inc.

Mr. Goodman. Correct.

Mr. Rinzel [continuing]. For $40,000 and you said that it was the
receipt for the payment. But it turns out apparently, that check
was never negotiated. What happened? Where is the receipt? x

Mr. Goodman. Well, what we did with the $40,000 check made
out to Alfred Certissimo, Inc. — and at the time, Madison Square
Garden Boxing did not have our own checking account, which we
do now — but if we were in Las Vegas, and we were in a series of
fights, we used to have to write a memo and fax it back to our ac-
counting department, who would then try to cut checks and send
checks back to us Federal Express. And when the checks came
back in as we asked them to cut them out, the check was made
out — the $40,000 portion which we asked for in cash — was made
out to Alfred Certissimo, Inc.

Mr. Rinzel. But that check was never processed. It is a nullity.

Mr. Goodman. No. The check was never processed.

Mr. Rinzel. So it had nothing to do with the purse payment.

Mr. Goodman. What we did, we still had a payment coming from
Don King Productions of $750,000. He had advanced $50,000 upon
the signing of the agreement. We asked Don King if he — or his
comptroller or his accountant — if he could make one check out for
$710,000 and the other check out to us for $40,000, which we then
cashed at the hotel. And I asked Stu Weiner to endorse the back of
the Alfred Certissimo check and give it back to me, which I
brought back to my accounting department, and they voided it out,
and we never cashed that check.

Mr. Rinzel. OK. So you physically gave $40,000 from a Don King
check to Stu Weiner

Mr. Goodman. Correct.

Mr. Rinzel [continuing]. In Las Vegas, Nevada

Mr. Goodman. Correct.

Mr. Rinzel [continuing]. At the Mirage Hotel?

Mr. Goodman. Correct.

Mr. Rinzel. And that was part of the purse?

Mr. Goodman. Correct.

Mr. Rinzel. In Nevada, all purses must pass from the promoter
to the commission representative to the fighter, to ensure that the
fighter isn't cheated out of any of his purse; is that right?

Mr. Goodman. Correct.

Mr. Rinzel. When we asked the Nevada Commission, they said
they'd never heard about any $40,000 cash payment in this fight or
any other fight, and they didn't like cash payments and basically

1 Exhibit No. 33h appears on page 257.

140

did not allow them. How did you get around that? How did you pay
part of a purse in $40,000 in cash, and the Nevada Commission not
know anything about it?

Mr. Goodman. Well, I would have to look back at my records to
see how the breakdown was. Don King was the promoter of the
fight in that particular instance, so I would think that we wrote
the Commission a letter, asking permission first of all to have the
checks made out to Alfred Certissimo, Inc.

Mr. Rinzel. Buddy McGirt did write such a letter to the Commis-
sion.

Mr. Goodman. OK, which would have to be done. I'd have to go
back and look at the checks and see

Mr. Rinzel. I am curious as to how a purse, which under the
Nevada contract was $625,000, and presumably the Nevada Com-
mission got that full purse from you.

Mr. Goodman. Six hundred twenty-five thousand dollars was the
full purse that was coming to Buddy McGirt.

Mr. Rinzel. Right. And you took $40,000 of that in cash and gave
it to Stu Weiner; is that correct?

Mr. Goodman. Well, I don't recall exactly how the breakdown
was. I'd have to see it.

Mr. Rinzel. Well, it doesn't matter exactly how the breakdown
was. The fact is that $40,000 in cash was given to Stu Weiner, not
to Buddy McGirt, by you personally, but the Nevada Commission
doesn't know anything about it. How did that happen?

Mr. Goodman. I just don't recall. I know by way of payment in
Nevada, the Commission usually pays the boxer, so-

Mr. Rinzel. The Commission always pays the boxer. That's part
of the Nevada regulations. They have to pay the boxer.

Mr. Goodman. Oh. I don't recall that.

Mr. Rinzel. Mr. Certo testified that cash payments are a regular
feature of his contracts with you; is that correct?

Mr. Goodman. No, it's not a part of a contract, but it's a part of
a regular way of doing business when people have been training for
a major fight for a long time, that they request a certain amount
in cash, and it is done by most of the promoters. As a matter of
fact, in Las Vegas in the past — and it was one of the few States
where we could do it because of the gaming industry — the checks,
with proper i.d., could be taken down to the casino cage after a
fight and cashed at the casino cage.

Mr. Rinzel. Well, that would be a check, though. We're talking
about cash.

Mr. Goodman. Yes. Well, they wouldn't cash a corporate check,
is what I'm saying when I say they made special arrangements.

Mr. Rinzel. I don't have any further questions.

Senator Roth. Now, you are Buddy McGirt's promoter, and we of
course have heard testimony from Mr. Gravano that a member of
the Gambino organized crime family owned part of Mr. McGirt's
contract. Were you aware of this prior to this hearing?

Mr. Goodman. No. I have never heard that until today.

Senator Roth. As Mr. McGirt's promoter, you do business with
his co-managers Al Certo and Mr. Weiner; is that correct?

Mr. Goodman. That's correct.

141

Senator Roth. And you heard the testimony of Mr. Gravano and
staff regarding Mr. Certo's and Mr. Weiner's ties to organized
crime. Were you aware of these connections prior to this hearing?

Mr. Goodman. No, I am not.

Senator Roth. If you had been aware of Mr. Certo's and Mr.
Weiner's organized crime connections and the fact that part of Mr.
McGirt's contract was owned by a member of the Gambino crime
family, would your employer, Madison Square Garden Boxing, have
entered into a promotional contract with these people?

Mr. Goodman. Absolutely not.

Senator Roth. What steps can we take short of a Federal Boxing
Commission to correct this situation? Do you have any suggestions?

Mr. Goodman. Well, I would have to think that some proof
would have to be brought up, or some indication that these allega-
tions are in fact true. And if the allegations are true, then I would
have to take a step back and rethink my relationship with Messrs.
Certo and Weiner.

Senator Roth. John, do you have any more questions?

Senator McCain. No.

Senator Roth. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Goodman.

Mr. Goodman. Thank you.

Senator Roth. Our next two witnesses are Iran Barkley and
Leonard Minuto.

Is Mr. Barkley here?

TESTIMONY OF MARK TUOHEY, ATTORNEY, REED, SMITH, SHAW

AND MCCLAY

Mr. Tuohey. He is not, Senator.

Senator Roth. Are you his attorney?

Mr. Tuohey. Yes, Senator. For the record, my name is Mark
Tuohey. I am a member of the firm of Reed, Smith, Shaw and
McClay, and I am Mr. Barkley's attorney.

Senator Roth. Mr. Tuohey, did you accept service of a subpoena
on behalf of Mr. Barkley?

Mr. Tuohey. I did, Mr. Chairman. In conversation with Mr.
Rinzel, I believe in March, I volunteered to accept service. Mr.
Rinzel and I go back some time to the Department of Justice to-
gether, and together with Ms. Hill, I have had a number of rela-
tionships with them. I did agree to accept service, and I communi-
cated that to Mr. Barkley.

I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I am at a loss as well. Mr. Barkley
was cooperative and has been cooperative before this Committee.
He testified fully at deposition.

I talked to him — I actually received the subpoena from Mr. Rin-
zel's office on March 18th. I was not in Washington that week; my
father passed away. But my secretary talked to Mr. Barkley, and
then I talked to Mr. Barkley, and he at all times has indicated to
me his willingness to continue to be cooperative with this Commit-
tee.

I am at a loss, Senator Roth, and I can only assume — and it is an
assumption — I can only assume that he may be ill; I know he was
moving this week with his fiancee. I have tried to reach him today,
and I have been unsuccessful.

142

Senator Roth. When were you last in contact with him?

Mr. Tuohey. I believe last Wednesday, Senator Roth. But there
have been two conversations.

Senator Roth. And Mr. Barkley was aware of this hearing.

Mr. Tuohey. Aware and fully prepared to come and testify, as he
did at his deposition, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Roth. He in no way indicated that he might do other-
wise?

Mr. Tuohey. Absolutely not, no.

Senator Roth. And what did you try to do to contact him today?

Mr. Tuohey. Well, I tried to contact his mother, as well as his
New York counsel, and it was certainly both of their understand-
ings that he was coming to the District of Columbia today to testi-
fy. And as I say, I have no indication, Mr. Chairman, none, that he
would do anything to frustrate this hearing. And I can tell you as a
former United States Attorney and Department of Justice official, I
fully explained very clearly to him, and I can only assume that
something has happened by way of illness or otherwise. I will con-
tinue to make attempts, and I can assure this Committee and you
as Chairman, Senator Roth, that if there is some alternative to an
additional date, I will do everything in my power, and I believe he
will be present. I just don't have an answer for you other than
that, Senator Roth.

Senator Roth. Well, obviously, this is a very serious matter to
the Subcommittee. We do not take lightly the failure of a witness,
particularly one that has been subpoenaed, to appear here. So that
we will ask you to keep us informed as to what you learn, as it will
be necessary for the Subcommittee to decide what kind of action to
take on the basis of his failure to appear.

Mr. Tuohey. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I will do everything I
can, and I will communicate with Mr. Rinzel and Ms. Hill, and I
can assure you that from my background and knowledge of Mr.
Barkley, I believe there will be a legitimate excuse. There is no
excuse for not appearing. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. But I'll
do everything I can, and I know my client will, too. 1

Senator Roth. I guess the thing that's hard to understand is if he
couldn't appear because of illness or whatever, why he couldn't
have advised you or the Subcommittee.

Well, thank you, Mr. Tuohey.

Mr. Tuohey. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to stay, or shall I
be excused?

Senator Roth. You are excused, Mr. Tuohey.

Mr. Tuohey. Thank you.

Senator Roth. Mr. Minuto, if you would please rise and raise
your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before
this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Minuto. I do.

1 Subsequent to the hearing, Iran Barkley 's deposition was taken on April 30, 1993. The depo-
sition appears as Exhibit No. 15 on page 168.

143

TESTIMONY OF LEONARD MINUTO; ACCOMPANIED BY GERARD
TREANOR AND PRESTON BURTON, CACHERIS AND TREANOR,
WASHINGTON, DC, COUNSEL

Senator Roth. Mr. Minuto, would you please state your full
name?

Mr. Minuto. Leonard Minuto.

Senator Roth. Mr. Minuto, would you inform us as to who is ac-
companying you? Are these your attorneys?

Mr. Treanor. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gerard Treanor, and
with me is my colleague, Preston Burton. We are with the law firm
of Cacheris and Treanor in Washington, and we are members of
the Bar of the District of Columbia.

And Mr. Chairman, may I request pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Rules of Procedure of this Subcommittee, that because of the dis-
tracting nature and the personal comfort of the witness, that the
television cameras and the lights illuminating for purposes of tele-
vision be extinguished?

Senator Roth. We will continue to have the television cameras
as we have had for this entire hearing. This question has been
raised in other hearings, and the matter is up to the Subcommit-
tee's discretion.

I would say to you that under our rules, you are allowed to be
here to advise Mr. Minuto, but you are not here as a witness. So
any further advice should be given to Mr. Minuto.

Mr. Treanor. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Roth. Mr. Minuto, Iran Barkley has testified in a deposi-
tion that you served as his advisor, that you typically received 10
percent of his boxing earnings, and that you received $100,000 in
connection with Mr. Barkley's recent fight against James Toney. Is
all that correct?

Mr. Minuto. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline
to answer the question on the basis of my Fifth Amendment rights.

Senator Roth. Mr. Minuto, if you would pull the mike a little
closer; we can't hear you.

You are currently not licensed in any capacity with any State
boxing regulatory body; is that correct?

Mr. Minuto. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline
to answer the question on the basis of my Fifth Amendment rights.

Senator Roth. What services do you perform for Mr. Barkley in
connection with his boxing career?

Mr. Minuto. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline
to answer the question on the basis of my Fifth Amendment rights.

Senator Roth. I understand that you have been arrested at least
seven times since 1974 for alleged gambling violations. Is that cor-
rect?

Mr. Minuto. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline
to answer the question on the basis of my Fifth Amendment rights.

Senator Roth. Mr. Minuto, Alfonse D'Arco was the acting boss of
the Luchese organized crime family and is now in Federal custody.
He has provided us with a sworn declaration that you are an asso-
ciate of the Joey Giampa crew of the Luchese crime family. Is that
correct?

144

Mr. Minuto. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline
to answer the question on the basis of my Fifth Amendment rights.

Senator Roth. Mr. Minuto, do you plan to invoke the Fifth
Amendment to every question that the Subcommittee propounds to
you?

Mr. Minuto. Yes, I do, Senator.

Senator Roth. In that case, you are excused at this time.

At this time, we would call forward Andrew Licari. Mr. Licari, if
you would continue to stand and raise your right hand. Do you
swear the testimony you provide this Subcommittee will be the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Licari. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW LICARI; x ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD
A. RAFANELLO, SHAIN, SCHAFFER & RAFANELLO, BERNARDS-
VILLE, NEW JERSEY, COUNSEL

Senator Roth. Please be seated. I'd appreciate it if your counsel
would introduce himself and his firm.

Mr. Rafanello. Richard A. Rafanello. The name of my firm is
Shain, Schaffer & Rafanello, in Bernardsville, New Jersey, sir.

Senator Roth. Mr. Licari, if you have a statement and can sum-
marize, we would appreciate that; in any event, your statement
will be included in the record in its entirety.

Mr. Rafanello. Senator, we submitted the statement for the
record. Mr. Licari has no need to recitate on that statement.

Senator Roth. Mr. Licari, you have testified that you once owned
a restaurant with Sonny Giglio. Are you aware that he has been
identified in Federal testimony as a soldier in the Luchese crime
family?

Mr. Licari. I might have read it, but I don't know for sure.

Senator Roth. Does this concern you?

Mr. Licari. It doesn't really concern me. It's none of my business
what he does.

Senator Roth. Now, I understand from your deposition that you
knew little about boxing prior to investing $300,000 in Bobby Czyz,
and that you also knew very little about Bobby Czyz as a boxer. Is
that correct?

Mr. Licari. Would you repeat that, please?

Senator Roth. I understand from your deposition that you knew
little about boxing prior to investing $300,000 in Bobby Czyz, and
that you also knew very little about Bobby Czyz as a boxer. Is that
correct?

Mr. Licari. Yes.

Senator Roth. Had you ever seen Mr. Czyz box before investing
$300,000 in a percentage of his future earnings?

Mr. Licari. Not really, no, sir.

Senator Roth. Mr. Licari, the statement you have submitted for
the record indicates that Bobby Czyz has paid you and your part-
ner $288,277 from his boxing earnings. Is that correct?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

1 The prepared statement of Mr. Licari appears on page 160.

145

Senator Roth. And your statement indicates that you have
loaned Mr. Czyz approximately $80,000 over the last 10 years. Is
that correct?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. What interest did you charge?

Mr. Licari. No interest at all.

Senator Roth. No interest at all?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. Is it true that Bobby Czyz still owes you $50,000
on these loans?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Is the answer yes on the $50,000?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Do you have any written receipts or agreements
for these loans?

Mr. Licari. We have checks, yes; we have checks that we gave
him.

Senator Roth. You also assert that Bobby Czyz owes you
$111,000 as your percentage of his last two fights. Why do you con-
tinue to lend him money at no interest under these circumstances?

Mr. Licari. Well, we became friends, and he seemed to have
problems each time that I gave him money, and he said after the
fight, he would pay me back. And he'd gotten a couple of little
jackpots.

Senator Roth. Have you made any other loans to individuals
such as those you made to Mr. Czyz?

Mr. Licari. Pardon?

Senator Roth. Have you made other loans to individuals such as
those you made to Mr. Czyz?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. With no interest.

Mr. Licari. No, sir; I don't charge interest to nobody.

Senator Roth. You don't charge interest to anybody.

Isn't it true that you have in the past made a $10,000 loan to one
Joseph Abate?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Joseph Abate was identified in 1988 PSI hearings
as a soldier in the Luchese crime family. Are you aware of his
crime family connections?

Mr. Licari. I probably read about it, but I knew him all my life.

Senator Roth. You have known him all your life?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. And you've only read about his involvement with
the Luchese crime family?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. You have no personal knowledge.

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. Alfonse D'Arco, former acting boss of the Luchese
crime family, described you in an affidavit as a "loan shark." Is
that true?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. What is a "loan shark"?

Mr. Licari. I couldn't tell you what a "loan shark" is, sir.

146

Senator Roth. You've never had any dealing with any "loan
shark"?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. Isn't it true that the so-called loan repayments
made to you by Bobby Czyz are in fact the interest due on your
original $300,000 loan to Bobby Czyz?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. Mr. Licari, are you currently licensed in any ca-
pacity with any State boxing commission?

Mr. Licari. No, I am not.

Senator Roth. Have you ever been?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. Is your investment with Mr. Czyz recorded with
any State boxing commission?

Mr. Licari. My investment with Mr. Czyz — I had an attorney,
and he had an attorney. They drew up a contract, and we signed it.
And I never gave it a second thought. But my attorney tells me
today that you don't as an investor need any type of a license.

Senator Roth. In any event, it was not recorded with any State
boxing commission?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. In the statement you submitted for the record,
you state that you and your partner have played no role in Mr.
Czyz' boxing career. Is this correct?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Do you have any input with respect to Czyz'
boxing career?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. I understand that Leonard Pizzolatto, now de-
ceased, was your brother-in-law. Is that correct?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. In an affidavit by Alfonse D'Arco, former acting
boss of the Luchese crime family, D'Arco asserts that Pizzolatto
was a member of the Luchese crime family. Is that true?

Mr. Licari. Who are you talking about, sir?

Senator Roth. Your brother-in-law, Leonard Pizzolatto.

Mr. Licari. I have no knowledge of that.

Senator Roth. You have no knowledge that he was a member of
the Luchese crime family.

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. In the same affidavit by Alfonse D'Arco, D'Arco
also asserts that Pizzolatto brought you into the Luchese crime
family. Is this true?

Mr. Licari. Absolutely not, sir.

Senator Roth. Mr. Licari, are you a member of the Luchese orga-
nized crime family?

Mr. Licari. I am not, sir.

Senator Roth. Are you familiar with an Anthony Accetturo,
Senior?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Are you familiar with a Michael Perna?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. You already said that you know Joe Abate.

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

147

Senator Roth. Are you familiar with a Michael and Marty Toc-
cetta?

Mr. Licari. Yes, sir.

Senator Roth. Mr. Licari, in testimony at a 1992 Federal trial in
the Eastern District of New York, Alfonse D'Arco, the former
acting boss of the Luchese crime family, testified that you, along
with the individuals that you have just identified, are members of
the Accetturo crew of the Luchese crime family. Is this true?

Mr. Licari. No, sir.

Senator Roth. Those are all the questions we have, Mr. Licari.

Mr. Licari. Thank you.

Senator Roth. The record of this hearing will be kept open for 30
days.

Mr. Rinzel. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of exhibits numbered 1
through 50 which I'd like to offer for introduction 'at this time.

Senator Roth. Without objection.

The Subcommittee stands in recess subject to call by the Chair-
man.

[Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

APPENDIX

Prepared Statement of Dr. Jordan

Ladies, Gentlemen and Senators: My name is Dr. Barry Jordan, I am a board cer-
tified neurologist, actively involved in the sport of boxing as a health care provider
and medical researcher. My current positions include, Medical Director of the New
York State Athletic Commission, team physician for USA Boxing, and assistant pro-
fessor of neurology and public health at Cornell University Medical College. I have
published several scientific articles on boxing, including a textbook entitled "Medi-
cal Aspects of Boxing."

Boxing is an inherently dangerous sport that can be made safer via improved
medical supervision and safety legislation. The mainstay of these improvements re-
quire medical research to understand, help prevent and minimize brain, eye, and
other medical injuries associated with boxing.

The major medical concern confronting boxing today is chronic brain injury.
Chronic brain injury represents the cumulative long-term effects and consequences
of professional boxing and is probably the condition that afflicts Muhammad Ali.

Approximately 20 percent of retired professional boxers experience chronic brain
injury. Boxers exhibiting chronic brain injury may experience slurred speech,
memory loss, personality changes, difficulty with walking, and/or Parkinson's dis-
ease.

Two important factors may contribute to developing chronic brain injury. A long
exposure to boxing or a long duration of career may increase the risk of chronic
brain injury. Accordingly, limiting the duration of a boxer's career may reduce the
risk of chronic brain injury. In addition, poor performance may be a risk factor for
chronic brain injury. Intuitively, one might expect that boxers who consistently lose
or display a poor performance will suffer more brain injury. Therefore, it appears
that boxers with excessive losses will have an increased risk of chronic brain injury.
Currently, in New York State, professional boxers are medically suspended for six
consecutive losses or three consecutive losses secondary to a TKO/KO.

Research on chronic brain injury will identify the risk factors for this condition
which in turn will provide criteria for legislative changes that may prevent or limit
serious illness. Formal research on chronic brain injury associated with boxing may
also lead to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease.
There are several pathological similarities between the brains of patients with Alz-
heimer's disease and boxers with chronic brain injury. The similarities may reflect
similar pathophysiological mechanisms. Furthermore, head trauma has also been
postulated to be a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.

Although chronic brain injury associated with boxing has been recognized since
1928, minimal medical research has been conducted to further our understanding of
this syndrome. There are several factors that have limited medical research in
boxing. First, there has been a lack of government monies made available for re-
search, because boxing has a low funding priority. Furthermore, a large representa-
tive population of boxers that could be effectively studied is lacking. The establish-
ment of a national registry of all professional boxers would provide a sample popu-
lation of boxers that could be evaluated.

Unfortunately, a substantial proportion of the medical community has abandoned
all efforts and concerns to improve the safety standards in boxing. Several medical
societies including the A.M.A. have proposed the abolition of the sport. However,
banning the sport of boxing will not make it safer, because it will continue under-
ground as "bootleg" boxing. This "bootleg" boxing would occur in basements, bars,
and backrooms and would totally lack medical supervision. This would result in a
substantially higher injury and death rate. Accordingly, I feel it is necessary to im-

(149)

150

prove the sport of boxing and make it safer by advancing medical research in
boxing.

Prepared Statement of Dr. Battalia

Ladies and Gentlemen, Senators: I am Dr. Jack Battalia, a semi-retired surgeon.
My avocation for 35 years has been boxing safety. I was a member of the Portland,
Oregon Boxing and Wrestling Commission for 29 Vz years, actively participating in
amateur boxing for 15 years as well. Five-and-one-half years ago, Oregon's law was
changed and I became a member of the Oregon Boxing and Wrestling Commission,
serving as chairman for the past 2 years.

For the past 8 years, I have also been the chairman of the IBF/USBA Medical
Committee.

When first appointed to the Portland Commission, I knew nothing about boxing
but my orders from the new Mayor were "don't let them get hurt." That has been
my priority for 35 years. We still had one detached retina and two subdural hemato-
mas, fortunately with good recoveries.

Boxing is not the dangerous sport that some would like to believe. It has dropped
from No. 5 to No. 9 in the past few years. This has come about because of the sweat
and tears of a lot of dedicated boxing people. The rate of deaths in horse racing is
the highest, followed by sky diving, hang gliding, and auto racing. Football has
many times the rate of deaths per thousand engaged in the sport than boxing, but if
any sports writer or politician even suggested altering the sport, the revolution
would make the Civil War look like a garden party.

One of the most important rule changes in boxing which has reduced head inju-
ries has been the placement of Ensolite safety mats under the ring canvas. An egg
dropped from 4 feet will not break on an Ensolite mat. Oregon was one of the first
States to mandate the mat for all boxing, pro and amateur, and we got the IBF to
follow suit. The leading cause of boxing deaths has been the head striking the floor
and not the gloved fist.

As far as gloves are concerned, there have been some dramatic changes. First, the
use of Ensolite instead of horsehair padding. Second, the tie-down thumb has re-
duced eye injuries and essentially prevented Bennett's fractures of the thumb.

This is a good time to correct some widespread misconceptions.

One, the safest fight as far as head injuries are concerned is no glove, but the
contestants would be cut to ribbons and hand fractures would be epidemic.

Two, a heavier glove does not reduce head injuries. It increases them. For every
two ounces of increased glove weight, it is the equivalent of putting a roll of pennies
in the boxer's hand. The increased padding reduces cuts but the increased weight
increases the force hitting the head and, thus, slapping the brain against the skull.
In my estimation, the time has come to eliminate boxing glove weight standards. I
have asked Dr. Barry Jordan from New York if they can research the optimum den-
sity and thickness of the padding to arrive at the safest glove. Then the gloves
would all have the same thickness and the only difference would be the width of the
glove depending on the size of the hand in the various weight classes.

Three, finally the misconception of headgear. Every do-gooder asks, "why don't we
make all boxers wear headgear like the amateurs? ' The headgear is a dangerous
effort to make some people look like they know what they are doing. Again, the
padding reduces the cuts and cauliflower ears; however, the headgear adds weight
to the head and, thus, when struck, the inertia slows the movement of the head and
thus the movable brain inside the skull slaps around more and you get contrecoup
injuries.

Four, the four-strand ring has reduced injuries from boxers falling through the
ropes, but the lowest rope needs to be moved back about 6 inches so a falling boxer
doesn't catch his neck on the bottom strand. I am positive that the Korean boxer
who died in California a few years ago was killed by the rabbit punch whiplash
when his neck struck the rope rather than the KO punch. This injury was dramatic
when reviewed on tape.

The standards for physical exams and eye exams are out there, but only a few
States in the IBF are following them. The IBF Medical Committee and its available
consultants are always available to evaluate a boxer and/or his suspension.

151

they scream "age discrimination." For every George Foreman, who is a physical ex-
ception, there are a thousand boxers out there who are getting hurt by being al-
lowed to continue. Help us put an age limit on boxing.

Prepared Statement of Dr. Ward

My name is W. Timothy Ward. I am currently in the full time practice of medi-
cine as an Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Pitts-
burgh, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I have been asked to appear before this Com-
mittee to provide testimony as to my understanding of the current state of profes-
sional boxing viewed from a medical standpoint. I believe that I do possess a certain
degree of credibility in this regard as I have been involved in the sport of boxing
first as an amateur competitor for several years and subsequently as a physician
caring for and overseeing the medical aspects of this sport since 1978. I am a
member of the Sports Medicine Committee of the USA Boxing Incorporated as well
as a certified ringside physician for that organization. I am currently Chairman of
the Medical Advisory Board and an exofficio voting member of the State Athletic
Commission for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. My statements today are not
the official positions of either the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania State Ath-
letic Commission or of USA Boxing Incorporated but rather reflect my personal
belief concerning the medical aspects of boxing.

The sport of boxing traces its roots to the 23rd Olympiad in 688 BC. At that Olym-
piad there was no ring utilized, no rest period, no time limits, punching and kicking
were allowed anywhere,and the contest was not over until one contestant either
gave up or was knocked out — a situation that we might well describe today as an
unruly street fight. The modern era of boxing was ushered in with the Queensbury
Rules of 1867 which mandated the use of padded gloves, three minute rounds with
one minute rest periods, abolition of wrestling, and the usage of a ten second knock
down rule. Boxing has continued to evolve since the inception of the Queensbury
rules but the fundamental intent of the sport has not changed. A contestant seeks
to out box and willfully concuss his opponent in order to gain victory. Such activity
will obviously entail a certain degree of risk for which medical treatment and super-
vision is necessary.

The forces produced by boxing head blows are quite significant. It has been esti-
mated that a safe level of force can be exceeded by a factor of four with boxing head
blows. This force is roughly equivalent to an unrestrained passenger striking his
head on the dashboard in a low speed auto collision. The forces generated by hard
head blows are frequently higher than the threshold for brain injury. An apprecia-
tion of the involved forces makes it easy to understand why the sport of boxing en-
tails a certain degree of neurologic ocular and musculoskeletal risk. Improved medi-
cal supervision of boxing will hopefully diminish the acute and chronic risks inher-
ent in this sport.

Despite a popular public misconception, boxing does not rank high on a risk ot
sporting endeavors which are associated with acute death. The prevalence of boxing-
related deaths has been estimated to be around 0.13 per 1,000 participants. This
compares very favorably to other sports such as college football which estimated at
0.3 per 1,000, hang gliding at 5.6, sky diving at 12.3 and horse racing at 12.8 per
1,000 participants. While death in the boxing ring is certainly tragic when it occurs,
current medical supervision is able to almost eliminate this event if appropriate
medical guidelines are followed.

Clearly, the singularly most important and derisive medical issue surrounding the
sport of professional boxing has to do with the occurrence and possible prevention of
chronic brain injury among its participants. Boxing fans refer to these affected ex-
boxers as being cuckoo, goofy, slugnutty, punchy, or punch drunk. The medical liter-
ature utilizes such terms as punch drunk, dementia pugilistica and chronic traumat-
ic boxer's encephalopathy.

Chronic traumatic boxers encephalopathy is a constellation of different types ot
cerebral, cerebellar, psychiatric, and Parkinsonian symptoms. Its time of onset, rate
of progression, and clinical manifestations are quite variable. It may first make its
appearance after a particularly difficult match, at the end of a lengthy career, or
not until 20 to 25 years after the cessation of a boxer's career. As stated, the rate of
progression of this syndrome is quite variable. Clearly there are many individuals
who have only a minor static involvement but there are others that have relentless
progression eventually requiring permanent psychiatric institutionalization. The
clinical manifestation of this syndrome is exceedingly variable. Early signs and
symptoms include slurring of speech, diminution in cognitive function particularly

152

with respect to perception and memory. Dementia can become exceedingly severe
and eventually indistinguishable from severe Alzheimer's syndrome. Cerebellar
symptoms lead to poor coordination and unsteadiness in gait. There may be weak-
ness of the upper extremities or dragging of a leg. Parkinsonian symptoms arise
which lead to immobility of facial appearance, slowness of movement, shuffling gait,
rigidity, and tremors. Psychiatric symptoms result in profound personality deterio-
ration with generalized lack of awareness and occasional violent behavior. The syn-
drome complex may initially be difficult to diagnose accurately because of the vast
array of signs and symptoms.

The occurrence of this syndrome is much more common in professional than in
amateur boxers. It is directly related to the length of a boxer's career and probably
not to the number of times he has been knocked down or out. The occurrence of the
syndrome increases with increasing age of the ex-boxer. An excellent medical study
reported in 1969 by Roberts which looked at retired British professional boxers who
had competed prior to World War II estimated the prevalence of this syndrome to
be around 17 percent. There is no definitive work available to tell us the modern
day prevalence of this syndrome. While modern day medical intervention probably
has diminished the frequency of this syndrome there are disturbing trends which
continue to be present. Studies which have utilized sophisticated CT or MRI imag-
ing as well as neuropsychological testing continue to demonstrate a high incidence
of subclinical structural findings. Whether these abnormal imaging findings and
neuropsychological tests are the precursors to a full-blown encephalopathic syn-
drome can only be answered with a longitudinal follow-up of these modern day
boxers.

I believe that there are at least seven areas in which the sport of boxing could be
improved from a medical stand point, thereby diminishing the occurrence of injury.
These measures include: (1) Better medical supervision, (2) shorter competitions, (3)
more consistent medical administrative control of the sport both nationally and
internationally, (4) more knowledgeable trainers, managers, promoters, and referees,
(5) appropriate gloves, rings, posts, and headgear, (6) and improved boxer education.

Better medical supervision can be subdivided into (1) an improvement in the qual-
ity of ringside physicians, (2) institution of mandatory medical suspensions, (3) insti-
tution of a serial imaging screening program, (4) assurance of acute life support
measures, and (5) development of a comprehensive evacuation plan and neurosurgi-
cal support in case of an emergency.

Ringside physicians should become more knowledgeable about the sport of boxing.
There is an abundance of medical literature available in the way of refereed and
non refereed articles, books and book chapters to educate these physicians. A physi-
cian should have freedom at ringside to stop a contest if he or she feels that a boxer
is in jeopardy. There should be no interference in this regard from the State Boxing
Commission or any other concerned parties. Medical suspensions should be strict
and uniform. Currently a suspension in one State may either not be appreciated or
ignored in another State. Suspensions should also apply to sparring sessions as well
as competition. Serial head scanning and ophthalmological examinations should be
instituted in order to detect early subtle abnormalities and thereby hopefully be
able to prevent these abnormalities from developing into more serious problems. A
mechanism of medical supervision which is uniform nationally should be instituted.
Such supervision is not currently possible within the financial budgets of most State
Boxing Commissions. Enhanced funding is clearly necessary to ensure uniform high
quality medical coverage. It is important that trainers, managers, promoters, and
especially referees all become better educated concerning the medical risks inherent
in boxing. The referee must recognize and understand the serious implications of
the so called groggy state in which fighters frequently find themselves. A contest
should not be allowed to continue when one boxer has been concussed and is not
adequately able to defend himself.

Besides chronic brain injury in boxing, serious injury is also noted in the muscu-
loskeletal system and in the ocular system. The incidence of retinal tears in profes-
sional boxers has been estimated to be somewhere around 13 to 24 percent. This in-
cidence is related to the number of bouts fought and to the number of losses sus-
tained. Unfortunately the boxer is usually asymptomatic when the injury first
occurs and therefore would only be picked up with appropriate ophthalmological
screening examinations. I would concur with published recommendations advising
annual ophthalmologic examinations which include visual acuity, visual fields, slit
lamp examination, pressure measurements, gonioscopy and dilated retinal examina-
tion. Enactment of the preventive measures which I have mentioned with respect to
brain injury would also apply to prevention of ocular or musculoskeletal injury.

153

Any opinion concerning the overall merits or deficiencies of boxing must be made
not only on medical but also sociological, psychological and financial grounds. Feel-
ings run deeply about the sport of boxing from unyielding support to unyielding op-
position with a determination to seek its abolition. Proponents of boxing argue that
the sport encourages rigorous training, discipline, alertness, courage, endurance,
and generally builds character. Boxing is also lauded as one of the few avenues to
"escape the ghetto" for economically disadvantaged minority youths. Opponents of
boxing site its known deleterious cerebral and ocular effects and consider it brutal,
atavistic, uncivilized, and inherently discriminatory with predominately disadvan-
taged minority youth as the participants.

In summary I believe that professional boxing is a very difficult sporting endeavor
requiring significant dedication and hard work. The participants expose themselves
to significant medical risk particularly with respect to neurologic and ocular injury.
The boxing establishment particularly the medical community, is attempting to
reduce these risks but the effectiveness of these risk reduction measures cannot be
determined until they are fully implemented. As is true with most complex social
issues, and boxing is surely more than simply a medical issue, there is room for
compromise and improvement. Diligent medical participation will continue to en-
hance boxing safety. On going expert care, sophisticated neurological and ocular
monitoring, and high quality retrospective and prospective medical studies in con-
junction with the institution of nationally accepted medical standards will eventual-
ly provide an indisputable data base which society can use to help make an educat-
ed, unemotional decision on how it chooses to deal with the sport of boxing. Ulti-
mately, it must be society that determines if the objectives of boxing are appropriate
for our culture and what level of inherent medical risks we are prepared to accept
as an unfortunate byproduct of this sport.

Prepared Statement of Mr. Abraham

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.

I am Seth G. Abraham and I am President of Time Warner Sports, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Home Box Office, Inc. For the past 15 years, I have directed the
negotiations for the telecasting of professional prizefights on HBO. Additionally, 2
years ago, HBO launched a boxing pay-per-view network we call "TVKO," which I
also oversee. Between our 2 networks, we broadcast approximately 20 professional
prizefights each year.

In fact, on January 16, 1993 HBO celebrated its 20th anniversary of boxing when
George Foreman marked our milestone with his 67th professional victory. It is a his-
torical curiosity that George Foreman also appeared in HBO's very first televised
bout when he won the World Heavyweight Championship from Joe Frazier in
Kingston, Jamaica on January 22, 1973. In the two decades since, HBO has televised
over 200 matches, including 109 world championship prizefights from all over the
world.

Last Saturday night was our 109th World Championship title fight when two of
the best fighters in the world, James "Buddy" McGirt and Pernell Whitaker vied
for the World Boxing Council's World Welterweight Championship before 11,000
fans at New York's Madison Square Garden and an HBO TV audience of 10 million
viewers.

Of course, the link between boxing and broadcasting pre-dates HBO and TVKO by
centuries. To be exact, 96 years ago next Wednesday the first full-length moving pic-
tures of a heavyweight championship prizefight were taken by an unknown camera-
man in Carson City, Nevada, who recorded for posterity Robert Fitzsimmons of Eng-
land knocking out James Corbett in 14 rounds on March 17, 1897. Further back
still, Greek heralds ran the countryside in about 880 BC to trumpet the winners of
Olympic box-offs. Television, therefore, is a by-product of boxing, not the other way
around.

I want to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity today to express my
views, and to support your efforts.

As you well know, Congressional committees have conducted boxing probes
through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. But I believe that Senator Roth's bill has the
potential to significantly improve boxing, both inside and outside the ring.

First, let me discuss the issues inside the ring. I applaud your efforts to reform
the conduct of the matches themselves. If you are successful, you will achieve two
very noteworthy goals. Men who box for a living will be safer with more thoughtful
health and safety protections and also, fans will have a higher regard for the sport's

65-875 0-93-6

154

credibility. In that regard, everyone involved in boxing gains. It is for that funda-
mental reason that we very strongly support legislation.

There are several provisions of your bill which we feel are particularly important
and deserve elaboration because they enhance the safety of boxers and the conduct
of what happens inside the ropes:

(1) An international, computerized clearinghouse should be established as a repos-
itory for fighters' medical records, won/loss records and videotapes of all televised
bouts for reference purposes. HBO/TVKO would be pleased to make available all
videotapes of the bouts we cover for this purpose.

(2) Annual licenses should be mandatory for boxers, referees, and judges.

(3) Three-year "certificates-of-registration" for managers, promoters and trainers
should be required.

(4) A key provision should protect and ensure the safety of fighters by establishing
uniform rules to govern the conduct, refereeing and judging of professional prize-
fights.

(5) The Federal Boxing Commission should impose standards for emergency medi-
cal services at every professional match.

(6) The Federal Boxing Commission should establish minimum standards for full
physical and neurological examinations and minimal standards for participation in
a professional prizefight.

(7) The boxing community should explore how to establish a life, accident and
health insurance fund for professional boxers. A portion of the total revenues gener-
ated by each professional prizefight should be set aside for this purpose, and

(8) The Federal Boxing Commission should establish minimum standards for the
manufacture and use of boxing equipment.

In boxing jargon, a "standing eight-count" is administered by a referee to give a
fighter eight seconds to regroup and collect his senses. If you enact these eight re-
commentations — which are largely already incorporated into your bill — you will
have helped, in no small measure, to protect boxing's sense of fair play for its most
important constituency — the fighters themselves.

I wish to point out to you that the eight counts of reform we have listed all have
to do with the conduct of a fight inside the ring and the physical safety of the men
who box for a living. They deserve to be safeguarded because "boxing is a hard way
to earn a big dollar."

Earlier in this statement, I suggested to the Committee that the scope of its probe
should include the study of what goes on outside the ropes that form the square in
which fighters go to work.

Boxing is a two-fisted business in every sense. On one hand, there is of course,
what happens inside the ring. In her book "On Boxing," Joyce Carol Oates describes
"each boxing match is a story, a unique and highly condensed drama without
words."

If the ring is a place beyond words, then the other hand of the sport is the busi-
ness of boxing. This commence is a contest of many words, much money, guile and
intellect, chess-like moves and counter-moves to make matches. Matchmaking to
make fights is frequently as percussive as the prizefight themselves.

That, too, needs study and thoughtful consideration. This part of the business is
far more subtle than the feints, jabs and slick moves from even the craftiest boxer.

I have met twice with representatives of this Committee suggesting to them an
examination of how the business of boxing conducts itself. I have attempted to paint
a detailed picture of how boxing negotiations are conducted and how television dis-
tribution deals are made. I have also responded to Subcommittee questions about
how boxers are ranked, unranked, or de-ranked and how the four governing organi-
zations govern or not. These ranking organizations are often part of the problem,
not part of the solution as they should be. Self-regulation among members of box-
ing's business community should be a goal for all of us, simply, to maintain and
enhance the public's belief in, and support of, boxing. The industry must do better.
Fans support boxing like any other sport. If fans lose their belief in boxing's legiti-
macy, the entire industry, fighters, managers, promoters and arenas suffer. Fans
are the organ grinders; we're the monkeys.

Nevertheless, revised standards and uniform regulations for the conduct of box-
ing's business should be examined carefully. In contrast to the health and safety
and related issues discussed above, I do not believe that sweeping regulation of the
business side of boxing is necessary or appropriate. There are, however, at least two
areas which merit your attention:

(1) How the four governing bodies impact the sport; and

(2) How conflicts-of-interest may adversely affect prizefighters.

155

Quite possibly, the most arcane and pernicious rules of the self-professed govern-
ing organizations are how they rate and rank prizefighters within 17 different
weight classes. Champions of some organizations are not even ranked in competing
organizations. Undefeated Heavyweight Champion Riddick Bowe is a non-person in
the World Boxing Council. In 1992 Bowe was actually lowered in the WBC's ratings
from No. 1 to No. 2, and the fighter who replaced him, Donovan "Razor" Ruddock,
had lost both of his matches during the year. This points to the need for an inde-
pendent body that has no financial interest to rank fighters based on won-loss
records, not byzantine politics. We support this important reform.

To the extent that conflicts-of-interest may exist in the boxing business, HBO has
neither the power nor the authority to police such conflicts. I believe, however, that
the best way to deal with conflicts is mandatory disclosure of information to the
boxers and State and Federal regulatory bodies. If you can ensure that everyone has
full knowledge of the relevant facts, you will have gone a long way toward limiting
the harmful effects of conflict of interest.

Oddly, even though boxing's business needs reform, ill-conceived regulations could
strip the sport of whatever effective policing and monitoring it does have, actually
making matters worse. At the turn of the 20th century, several States, including
New York banned boxing altogether, so enterprising promoters staged bouts on
river barges,outside territorial waters. Barge fights made arena fights appear to be
church socials by comparison.

Again Joyce Carol Oates: "life is like boxing in many unsettling respects. But
boxing is only like boxing." Since boxing is only like boxing, I urge caution and
common sense wisdom on promulgating new rules to govern its business.

I am often asked if I consider boxing a sport. After all, one plays football, tennis
or basketball. One doesn't "play" boxing. It is a serious business. When asked about
boxing as a sport, ageless-but-not-speechless George Foreman had this to say:

"Boxing is sort of like jazz. The better one performs, the less amount of people
can really appreciate it."

But boxing is a sport with thousands of practitioners and millions of fans through
the United States.

In fact, America's first identifiable sports hero, was the heavyweight giant John
L. Sullivan, who did business as "The Boston Strongboy" throughout the 1880s. Sul-
livan entered boxing lore and was held in the highest esteem when he vowed and
delivered on the promise that "I can lick any man in the house."

If your hearings and legislation can lick just some of boxing's problems and short-
comings, real fight fans and prize fighters would regard you, too, in high esteem.

Thank you, Senators, for this chance to express my views.

I hope they are of some value to you.

Prepared Statement of Mr. Aresco

My name is Michael Aresco and I am a program manager in the ESPN Program-
ming Department. ESPN is the Nation's largest cable network reaching approxi-
mately 61.8 million homes. It is an all sports network which has programmed over
60 different kinds of sports. As a program manager, I acquire and manage program-
ming in various categories, including college football, rodeo, and other equestrian
programming. I have also handled NCAA championships, yachting, and fitness and
aerobic shows. One of my current programming responsibilities is ESPN's boxing. I
have been with the network 8 years and was Assistant General Counsel before join-
ing the Programming Department. I am a graduate of Tufts University, the Fletch-
er School of Law and Diplomacy and the University of Connecticut Law School.

In April, ESPN celebrates the 13th anniversary of our highly popular and success-
ful Top Rank boxing series, which features up and coming fighters as well as estab-
lished fighters. The series has featured important world title matches, and enter-
taining and significant non-title fights. Over the years, we have also televised occa-
sional boxing cards obtained from other promoters, which we refer to as wildcard

Boxing is a major and popular sport among our viewers worldwide. Our philoso-
phy with respect to our boxing, as manifested in our Top Rank series, has been and
remains to provide our viewers with the best quality fights that they would most
want to watch. We are proud of the integrity, stability, longevity and ratings and
production success of the series. ,

Let me give you some background on how we program boxing at hbfiN. We tele-
vise approximately 40, mostly live, boxing cards per year, through our agreement
with Top Rank, Inc. We have been doing business with Top Rank since 1980. Top

156

Rank arranges the boxing matchups, employing matchmakers who try to create ex-
citing, competitive, quality bouts. Top Rank promotes and stages the cards, makes
all arrangements with the proposed sites, pays the fighters, obtains all required
boxing licenses or other necessary authorizations — in short handles all the arrange-
ments necessary to stage the events for television. ESPN in turn selects the an-
nouncers and commentators and produce the telecasts. Included in each telecast are
various features, including a segment called "Ringside Report" which focuses on
current boxing news and upcoming fights of note.

Our boxing mix consists of fights in most weight classes, which in any given year
might include various title fights, as well as undercard fights which usually feature
up and coming young fighters. For example, we recently televised the IBF Cruiser-
weight title fight between Alfred Cole and Uriah Grant. Mike Tyson, Riddick Bowe,
and Tommy Hearns have all fought on Top Rank boxing.

ESPN generally schedules its Top Rank cards, which are usually 2-hour shows but
occasionally are 1 V2 hours, in prime time on Thursday nights, Sunday nights in first
Quarter, and occasional Wednesdays and Fridays when scheduling conflicts occur.
We also repeat our Top Rank telecasts at other times of the day, usually weekday
afternoons. From time to time ESPN has acquired repeat-delay-rights to boxing
cards originally staged by Top Rank as pay-per-view or network 'fights. These bouts
are included in our Top Rank shows.

Additionally, ESPN has over the years televised historical boxing matches which
are call "Superbouts." These are 1-hour shows featuring footage of such famous
fights as Ali-Norton, Leonard-Duran, Leonard-Hagler, or compilation shows such as
George Foreman's Knockouts or Marvin Hagler's Knockouts. This series, along with
our live Top Rank series, is popular with our viewers.

A gauge of that popularity is our high ratings for the Top Rank series. In 1992,
we averaged a 2.2 rating for 40 cards. A rating point represents 1 percent of ESPN's
viewer universe of approximately 61.8 million households, which translates to ap-
proximately 618,000 homes. A 2.2 rating represents approximately 1,360,000 house-
holds who regularly watch ESPN's Top Rank boxing.

We take measures to safeguard the integrity of our boxing. Top Rank does not use
fighters whose records cannot be verified by the well-respected Ralph Citro Record
Service. All feature match fighters must have winning records. We require Top
Rank to sign a quarterly certificate certifying that all information to be provided to
ESPN during the affected calendar quarter with respect to all fighters appearing on
ESPN is true and correct.

In summary, boxing is an important part of ESPN's successful programming mix.
It has consistently been one of our highest rated series over the years.

Prepared Statement of Mr. Gravano

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Salvatore Gravano. Early in my life, I was given the nickname, "Sammy the Bull." I
have been in jail since December of 1990, when I was arrested with John Gotti. I
was his underboss and second in command of the Gambino family.

I have been involved with organized crime since 1968, when I became associated
with a guy named "Shorty Spero" of the Colombo family. I committed many types
of crimes when I was with "Shorty," including my first murder. In 1972, I was offi-
cially released from the Colombo family to the Gambino family. I became a "made"
member of the Gambino family in 1976. At that time, Paul Castellano was the boss
of the Gambino family.

In December of 1985, John Gotti and I, along with some others, murdered Paul
Castellano. We then took over our family. John Gotti became the boss. A couple of
weeks later, I became a captain. In 1987, I became acting consigliere of our family. I
later became the official consigliere. Then in January of 1990, I accepted the posi-
tion of official underboss, which I held until I began to cooperate with the govern-
ment in 1991.

I decided to cooperate before we — meaning me, John Gotti and our acting consig-
liere, Frank Locascio — went to trial. I testified in that trial and some other trials. I
will be testifying at more trials in the near future. As part of my deal with the gov-
ernment, I pleaded guilty to a charge that has a 20 year maximum sentence, rather
than the life sentence that I was facing if I was convicted at trial. As part of my
cooperation, I have told the government about my life of crime, including the fact
that I participated in 19 murders.

As a member of our family's administration, I helped John Gotti run the family.
My primary responsibility was controlling the construction industry in New York. I

157

did this by working with union officials and companies that were owned or con-
trolled by our family, and by dealing with other families, which also controlled cer-
tain unions and companies.

I have been asked to testify here today about the mob's involvement in profession-
al boxing. I don't know much about what other families have been doing in boxing,
but I do know about our family.

The Gambino family had basically gotten out of boxing some time around, or
before, 1960. We were involved in other things that made more money. But I have
always had an interest in boxing. I boxed a little when I was in the Army, and I
picked it up again a few years before I was arrested. I would go down to Gleason's
Gym in Brooklyn every week and work out. Sometimes, I would go a few rounds
with other people who trained there. I often attended fights in New York and New
Jersey, including the Mike Tyson-Larry Holmes fight in 1988 in Atlantic City, which
I attended with John Gotti.

I got to know a heavyweight named Renaldo Snipes and his manager, who I knew
as Sal. I tried to set up a fight between Snipes and Francesco Damiani, who was the
undefeated European and WBO heavyweight champ. Damiani was with an orga-
nized crime family in Italy. Since our family had close ties with the Italian family, I
was able to set up a meeting with Damiani's people. They came to New York, and
we discussed the possibility of a fight with Snipes. At that time, Damiani was al-
ready scheduled to fight Ray Mercer.

One of the things I did to try to arrange a Damiani-Snipes fight was to reach out
to set up a meeting with the guy who was in charge of boxing for Donald Trump. I
believe his name was Mark Etess. Snipes, his manager Sal, and I met with this
Mark in Atlantic City, he told us that a fight between Damiani and Snipes would
sell. Mark thought it would be even bigger if Snipes had a high ranking with one of
boxing's sanctioning bodies.

Joe Watts, who is an associate in our family, told me that he had someone in Las
Vegas who could help us get a ranking for Snipes. Watts arranged a meeting for me
with Joey Curtis, a boxing referee in Las Vegas. Joey Curtis had once visited our
club, the Ravenite Social Club, in New York City.

So I went to Las Vegas with two of my friends and our wives. After we had dinner
with Curtis, I took him aside and asked him if he could get Snipes moved up in the
rankings. Curtis said he could move Snipes up in the rankings of the World Boxing
Council, which is based in Mexico. Curtis said that this would cost $10,000, but, be-
cause it was a favor for John Gotti, he might be able to get it done for $5,000.

My idea all along was to use the Damiani-Snipes fight as a set up fight to get
Damiani a big payday against Mike Tyson. My plan was for Snipes to have a high
ranking, and then make it look good, but lose to Damiani. I never discussed this
with Snipes because Damiani lost to Mercer, which put Damiani out of the picture
for a major fight. I'm sure that we would have had no problem in convincing Snipes
to lose.

Another boxer our family has an interest in is Buddy McGirt, who recently lost
the WBC welterweight title. His manager is Al Certo, who is a Gambino family as-
sociate. Al Certo is with JoJo Corozzo, who is a "made" member of our family.

I know Al Certo is with our family because JoJo put it on record with his captain,
Peter Gotti. Also, a "beef came up between our family and the Bufalino family
about who McGirt was with. Eddie Sciandra, the consigliere of the Bufalino family,
complained to John Gotti that the Bufalinos had a piece of McGirt. Gotti told me to
arrange a meeting with Sciandra and JoJo to resolve the "beef." I actually had sev-
eral meetings with JoJo and Sciandra about this. JoJo said that he had paid Scian-
dra some money to walk away from McGirt, but now Sciandra wanted back in be-
cause McGirt had done well and was getting bigger purses. After hearing both of
them, I recommended to John Gotti that JoJo was right, and that McGirt should
stay with JoJo and our family. Eddie Sciandra was not satisfied with my decision,
and kept coming back for more meetings. I got tired of meeting with Sciandra about
this, but, out of respect for his position and age, we had Frank Locascio, who was
part of our administration, continue to talk to him. But our position never changed.
Certo and McGirt stayed with our family.

I should point out that the person who was with us was really Al Certo. His rela-
tionship with JoJo Corozzo is how we had a piece of McGirt. McGirt is a fighter,
and, although Certo brought him by the club once and introduced him to some
people, it really wouldn't be fair for me to say that he is an associate of organized
crime. But Certo was with us, and that gave us our interest in McGirt.

158

used to be. A lot of people think that organized crime makes money by fixing fights
and betting on the winner. That really doesn't happen anymore. The purses have
gotten so big that it doesn't make sense to fix a fight in order to collect on a bet.
While we would consider fixing a fight in order to set up for a big payday fight —
like I had in mind for Damiani — the money is in the purses, not in betting. Besides,
boxing is a risky business for bookmakers — you couldn't bet big money on a fight
even if you wanted to.

So, the interest today is in getting a piece of a successful boxer. Until a boxer
reaches a certain level, there is not much money to be made because the purses are
small. But, once a boxer becomes successful, the family that has him can profit from
that success. Now, because the size of the purses have gotten so big over the past 20
years, organized crime is more and more interested in getting back into it.

I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have about organized
crime and boxing.

Prepared Statement of Mr. Goodman

My name is Bob Goodman, and I am Vice President and Matchmaker for Madison
Square Garden Boxing. Since we hosted our first fight involving John L. Sullivan
nearly a century ago, the Garden has been an upstanding and conscientious
member of the boxing community. To ensure our ability to continue to bring fights
to the people of New York City, we have served as a promoter of boxing events in
addition to our role as a world-class venue for boxing contests.

We are a promoter in the classic meaning of the term — we arrange matches and
promote them. To facilitate our role in this endeavor, we enter into exclusive, long-
term, promotional agreements with some fighters. In these contracts, which are
common and essential to the boxing industry, the promoter receives promotional
rights while providing the boxer with financial consideration and guaranteed mini-
mum purse amounts with respect to future bouts. These contracts benefit both the
athletes and the promoters. They are universally recognized as essential vehicles by
which fighters are able to develop their skills in a manner that will assure them
fair compensation while, at the same time, providing the promoter with a fair op-
portunity to generate a return from its risk-intensive business.

We serve sole as a promoter and venue for professional fights. Our relationship
with boxers is arms-length, proper, and legal. None of the concerns that have been
expressed about promoter conflicts of interest at previous hearings apply to Madison
Square Garden. We do not manage, train, or provide financial advice to fighters
with whom we deal.

As previously communicated to Senator Roth by Robert Gutkowski, president of
Madison Square Garden, my company supports the creation of a Federal Boxing
Commission to establish uniform national regulations to govern the sport of boxing.
We believe that the establishment of uniform standards can help protect the health
and safety of professional fighters. At the same time, more effective regulation of
boxing should inure to the benefit of the many honest individuals and companies
involved in boxing by improving public confidence in the conduct of the sport.

Because our views are similar to those expressed before this Subcommittee by Mr.
Abraham of HBO Sports and Mr. Aresco of ESPN 3 weeks ago, we will not cover the
same ground in the interest of time.

I personally and MSG as a company have at all times acted forthrightly and
sought in good faith to fully comply with all applicable regulatory provisions of the
various States in which we promote fights. We have also cooperated fully with this
Subcommittee and hope we have assisted your investigation. Nonetheless, a few
questions have arisen about our role in the match between James "Buddy" McGirt
and Simon Brown on November 29, 1991. This match, held at the Mirage Hotel in
Las Vegas, is one of the few fights taking place in the State of Nevada with which
we have been involved.

The questions that have arisen about MSG revolve around the differences be-
tween two contracts we signed with Buddy McGirt and his manager — one a stand-
ard contract required by the Nevada Athletic Commission and executed under
Nevada law on November 22, 1991, one week before the fight, and a contract execut-
ed on November 26 in what has been referred to as the ''New York contract." A
cursory examination of the two contracts could give rise to an interpretation that
we were attempting to bypass Nevada regulatory requirements. However, an exami-
nation of the actual facts clearly demonstrates that not to be the case.

In paragraph 2 of the Nevada standard contract, we only noted the actual purse
amount and did not make reference to $75,000 in training expenses we had agreed

159

to pay to Mr. McGirt and his manager, an amount mentioned in the New York con-
tract signed four days later. We did not include the training expenses, which had
previously been paid to Mr. McGirt and his manager, in paragraph 2 for the simple
reason that we concluded that the Nevada form agreement only required the actual
purse amount. We continue to believe that this interpretation is consistent with the
language of the Nevada form agreement.

The training expenses we contracted'to pay for the McGirt/Brown fight, approxi-
mately 10 percent of the total amount paid, were customary and fully consistent
with the standard practices of professional boxing, not only within Nevada but
throughout the United States. We acknowledge that we paid these training ex-
penses without the prior approval of the Nevada Athletic Commission. We were to-
tally unaware of any obligation to secure Nevada Athletic Commission approval
before paying those expenses in advance of the fight. Had we known about this re-
quirement, we would have simply requested the requisite approval. We had no
reason not to; given that we were following standard industry practices, there is
simply no doubt in our mind that a request made by MSG or Mr. McGirt's manager
would have been approved. Our actions were honest and straightforward. If there
was a mistake, it was entirely inadvertent.

The second issue that has arisen concerns a provision of the New York contract
which purportedly gives MSG the exclusive rights to promote Mr. McGirt's next five
bouts. The staff of this Subcommittee suggested in a public statement on March 10
that this provision was executed as part of the New York contract in order to avoid
Nevada rules against "multiple option contracts." While we understand how one
could draw this conclusion, nothing could be further from the truth.

The staffs March 10 statement has a very concise description of multiple option
contracts, noting that "[i]n a typical option contract the promoter of the current
champion agrees to give a potential challenger an opportunity for a match only if
the challenger agrees that, should he win, the challenger will fight exclusively for
the promoter for a certain number of future fights." Thus, a multiple option con-
tract constitutes an agreement between a professional fighter and the promoter of a
rival boxer, where the first fighters and the rival's promoter have no contractual
relationship at the time the fight and the option contract is executed.

This description, however, does not describe the reality of our relationship with
Mr. McGirt at the time of his fight with Simon Brown. At that time, MSG and Mr.
McGirt were already parties to a long-term, pre-existing promotional agreement
under which McGirt, for substantial consideration, had granted to MSG the exclu-
sive right to promote, or at our election to co-promote, all of his bouts for five years.
As I noted earlier, such agreements are common and universally recognized as bene-
ficial to fighters because they are able to develop their skills while being assured of
fair compensation.

In this context, the "options" provision of the New York contract granted MSG no
rights we did not already have in our prior arrangements with Mr. McGirt, and it
imposed no new restrictions and conditions on him.

The provision was included in the New York contract for one reason only, one
that had nothing to do with our legal obligations and rights with respect to Mr.
McGirt. Under the terms of the McGirt/Brown match, Mr. Brown's promoter Don
King had the right to co-promote with MSG the next five McGirt fights.

MSG acceded to King's request for co-promotional rights for the five bouts with
the full knowledge and urging of Mr. McGirt's manager. MSG decided to grant such
rights because it permitted the McGirt/Brown fight to take place; — a bout that
would clearly advance McGirt's career; in fact, McGirt won this fight making him
the world welterweight champion. It is critical to point out that this grant had no
effect whatsoever on McGirt's future earnings, his legal rights, or his legal responsi-
bilities.

Before the McGirt/Brown bout, Don King made repeated requests for evidence
that MSG had the right to promote, and thereby to grant co-promotion rights, to
Mr. McGirt's next five matches. In the hectic days and under the intense pressure
of pre-fight activities. I decided that the five-bout provision in the New York con-
tract should be entered into with the thought that it could be shown to Mr. King
and thus allay his concerns. After executing the New York contract, I realized that
as a means of addressing Mr. King's concerns it served no purpose in view of our
long term promotional agreement with McGirt. Ultimately, I was able to convince
Mr. King, without showing him the relevant documentation, that by virtue of our
promotional agreement with Mr. McGirt we possessed the necessary promotional
rights.

The New York contract did not violate Nevada rules proscribing multiple option
contracts because the "options" contemplated by that agreement had no effect in

160

light of our long-term promotional agreement with Mr. McGirt. It neither in sub-
stance nor spirit represented an effort to evade or circumvent Nevada's rules on
multiple option contracts.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would again state that Madison Square Garden
supports the effort of this Subcommittee to examine professional boxing and to
enact meaningful national reform legislation. I hope that my statement is helpful
and that I have answered any concerns raised at previous hearings about our role. I
will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Prepared Statement of Mr. Licari

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee:

After reading the press release setting forth the basis for this investigation and
these hearings, I believe it necessary to provide a brief opening statement for the
record regarding my investment in Bobby Czyz and our personal relationship so
that hopefully all will view this relationship in its proper perspective. Let me start
by saying that I welcome you to confirm with Mr. Czyz or his professional staff the
accuracy of anything I may tell you regarding our twelve year relationship or the
financial transactions between us.

Approximately 30 years ago I, along with my partner started a company known
as Solid State. Together we worked five, six and often seven days per week to build
it into a very successful distributor of computer components which has furnished
employment for many, many people. The continued financial success of Solid State
has allowed us to make other investments both within and outside of its industry.

One of those investments was a $300,000 investment made in 1981 for the pur-
chase of a 26 percent interest in the net proceeds to be derived by Bobby Czyz for
his boxing matches. That investment was not done in a surreptitious manner and
has always been open to the scrutiny of anyone having a legitimate purpose to do
so. Our entitlement to 26 percent of the fighter's net proceeds was initially limited
in duration and gave us absolutely no voice in any issue relating to the fighter or
the actual boxing event itself. To this date neither I nor my partner have ever been
directly or indirectly involved in any decision relating to the training of Bobby Czyz,
who he fought, where he fought, the promotion of the fight or any other aspect of
the fighter or the boxing matches in which he was engaged. Nor has our opinion
ever been solicited regarding any of these issues. In fact, I have rarely ever spoken
to his trainer or any of his professional staff. My sole involvement has been after
the event, and even at that we rarely questioned Mr. Czyz when he informed us as
to the amount of his net proceeds.

To this end the Committee should be aware that since 1981 my partner and I
have received a total of $288,277 returned on our $300,000 investment over twelve
years. During that time period bobby has also asked us as his friends for various
loans such as on one occasion he needed monies to enable him to pay for his wed-
ding and on another occasion he needed monies to purchase a home. In total his
loans have amounted to $80,000 of which only $30,000 has been repaid to date.
These loans have always been interest free.

Thus, of our $300,000 investment, we have seen a return of $288,277 and are owed
an additional $50,000, leaving us with a net return of $238,277 over twelve years.
Again, all of these financial transactions are documented and have always been
available for review by the appropriate authorities, such as your Committee.

You should also be aware that often Mr. Czyz has been unable to pay us our share
after a fight advising us that his obligations to the Internal Revenue Service con-
sumed his share of the pie. For instance, in his last two fights in Las Vegas he ad-
vised us that our share was $73,000 and $38,000, neither of which did he pay be-
cause of his financial inability to do so. We have always trusted Bobby's representa-
tions to us concerning the amount of his net proceeds as well as his statements that
he could not pay us our share but would make it up to us in future fights.

Thus, I think you can see that our investment in Bobby Czyz has been less than a
successful business venture. However, our relationship has always been warm, and I
believe Bobby would confirm to you that we have always done our very best to help
him through some difficult setbacks in his life. When considering the issue of
whether or not Andrew Licari's investment has been of value to the life and boxing
career of Bobby Czyz, or detracted from it, I respectfully suggest to you that this
question is best answered by Bobby himself. As you all know, he is an extremely
intelligent young man who can think for himself. I am willing to live with his
answer.

161

The Committee should also be aware that this investment in Bobby Czyz has been
the sole investment made by me or my partner in the boxing industry. The Commit-
tee should further be aware that we have earned no monies from Mr. Czyz or his
boxing matches, other than those I have set forth. There has been no ancillary
income from our investment in Mr. Czyz.

I believe it also important to provide you with a brief statement concerning any
alleged involvement by me in any criminal activity. I unequivocally deny being in-
volved in criminal activity of any nature. I further do unequivocally deny being in-
volved in any organization which is involved in criminal activity. I have confirmed
to your staff that approximately 30 years ago I was arrested for the crime of posses-
sion of lottery slips. I entered a plea of guilty to that charge and served a probation-
ary term while paying a fine. I have not been convicted of a crime since that date,
and the two arrests shown on my record thereafter were dismissed because they
were baseless. I know of no one who could truthfully testify in any court of law that
I am engaged in criminal activity.

Your staff has asked me questions concerning my relationship to many individ-
uals, some of whom have been reported in the newspapers to be engaged in orga-
nized criminal activity. I have truthfully advised your staff that I am familiar with
some of those individuals and have known them since childhood. Your staff will also
confirm that many of the names that they asked me about I was totally unfamiliar
with. While I have maintained casual, friendly relationships with individuals about
whom the Committee has asked me, my relationship with those individuals has
been nothing more than a casual, friendly relationship. I do not see them on a regu-
lar basis and may not see or hear from many of these individuals for many years.
The essential point I wish to make to this Committee is that my friendliness with
any individual has never affected in any way whatsoever my business or personal
relationship with Bobby Czyz.

In essence, I simply wish to convey to this Subcommittee that I made an invest-
ment in Bobby Czyz several years ago of significant monies legitimately earned from
my business. That investment has not proven to be a good one. Further, while my
causal, friendly relationships with individuals with whom I grew up may have con-
tinued from time to time, I am not engaged in any criminal activity, nor am I a
member of any group that is engaged in criminal activity. I am simply a reputable
businessman of long standing whose daily activities include working 8 to 10 hours
per day and going home to his wife, daughter and grandchild at the end of the busi-
ness day.

163

«■* -c S- « o» £

^J f * ?» 1 I

£.§ liJk.

* s E -a 6

m 9-o o o

Iran
IBFS
World
erWB
World

e 5 :

(/>

•*-

E .9

5_ |

C
0)

Bobby Czyz
rweighl World
rmer IBF Ligh
ghl World Ch

f AtleaslX

S u. I

*»

E 5"

| if I g>5

i all *|
* I J t- ° S I

£ S

164

(/)

£
3
LL

*f-
O

Li.

CqCT>

°co en

<"!~ CD

o SZ

2 Q) w '

r — CO
>, QJ O)

=>° </)

CD CD ro

:*:

</>

c i-
o «J

■o o
£a

°- 6
wo

-o-S,

9 « E
c/) c 5

2 <D .3

IJ!I

^s 2 5; t,

™ o aJB r
► a) o o t- C5\

3 , <=> o _
O" O '

</>

r- TO 0)

.33 g

ro (A i
cc a

< CM J in

- « O •£ 13

o Jo cue £ c

O >0 O 3 O

£ ■£ o 0> «
■-<gSf

gsg§§

10 x: ni v
9- a>£ £

3 o Dl

CE o

O
<7?

8 *

(A 0-*£°

*».E o wog

165

-■

3 o i

LI1U

L JiUUiiL-J

1*1

i E

ill HIli

O '

iii

rrm"'""

i 1 ii

8 *

l ►6801G-01ZO-"

ii' :sg

■Wlv

i Si

166

c
, , | I > , -.

§ -9

S *

HS< !

use

167

Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations

EXHIBIT #__£

168

gas

S«nat« Pwrmanwrt SuftcowinittW
«i Investigations

EXHIBIT #_i5 _

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

_________________ -x

In Re: :

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING :

Friday, April 30, 1993
Washington, D.C. 20011
The deposition of IRAN BARKLEY , called for
examination by counsel for the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, in the above matter, pursuant to notice
at Russell Senate Office Building, Room 192, Washington,
D.C, convened at 11:40 a.m., before Gwen A. Schlemmer,
a notary public in and for the District of Columbia, when
were present on behalf of the parties:

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN
507 C Sueei. N.E
^ashinpon. D C 2000:

169

APPEARANCES:

On Behalf of the United States Senate, Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations:

DANIEL F. RINZEL, ESQ.

W. LEIGHTON LORD III, ESQ.

STEPHEN H. LEVIN, ESQ.

On Behalf of Iran Barkley:

MARK H. TUOHEY III, ESQ.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay
1200 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
202/457-8668

ALSO PRESENT:

HAROLD LIPPMAN, Investigator

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

R. JEFFERY GREENE, Investigator
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay

EXHIBITS

MILLER REPORTING CO . INC
107 C Street. N E
Washington. DC 20002

170

AFFIDAVIT OF IRAN BARKLEY

Iran Barkley, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am a professional boxer and I currently reside at
326 Prospect Avenue, Apartment 10-G, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.
This affidavit is for the purpose of explaining my absence at the
April 1, 1993 hearing before the United States Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations.

2. In March, 1993, my attorney informed me that the
Subcommittee wanted to subpoena me to testify at a hearing about
the information I had previously given the Subcommittee staff in
deposition. I authorized my attorney to accept service of the
subpoena. I was later advised by my attorney of the April 1, 1993
hearing date, and I intended to fully comply.

3. In the last week of March, 1993, I moved my family
from upstate New York to New Jersey. During the last weekend in
March, and due in part to the move and the weather, I got a bad
case of the flu. I was in bed with the stomach flu for about 10
days.

4. During this period when I was in bed with the flu, I
completely forgot about the hearing date. Unfortunately, having
just moved into my new home, arrangements had not been finalized
for telephone service, and so it was not until early April that
the telephone was hooked up. As a result, my attorney could not

171

get in touch with me, and I failed to get in touch with him
because of the illness.

5. I apologize to the Subcommittee for any
inconvenience my absence has caused. Although my illness would
have prevented me from appearing on April 1, this illness was no
excuse for not making an attempt to notify my attorney. Due to
the fact that I spent the last week in March in bed, it completely
slipped my mind. I want to emphasize, however, that it has always
been my intent to cooperate with the Subcommittee.

Subscribed and sworn to
before me this 30jtjQ day
of April, 1993

1/-

;aryT]

^MA^

otaryTPublic

f\, hj^<*C <?rt^*yfy-,

VIRGINIA R. CUMMIH3S

My commission expires N ntflr y Pn hli r, District bl Columbia
My Commission Expires July 31, 1994

-2-

172

gas

I 12

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO . IN(2 5
50" C Succi. N E
Washington. D C 20002

PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,

IRAN BARKLEY
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:

MR. LORD: Would your attorney identify himself for
the record.

MR. TUOHEY: My name is Mark Tuohey . I am in the
firm of Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay. My colleague is Jeff
Greene, from the firm, is with me, and we represent Mr.
Barkley .

I have the original of the affidavit that I faxed
over to you, at your request.

MR. LORD: This is an affidavit of Iran Barkley. I
would like to have this marked as Exhibit 1 and made a part
of the record.

[Exhibit No. 1 was marked for
identification. ]
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
BY MR. LORD:
Q Mr. Barkley, I am handing you what we have marked
Exhibit No. 1. Would you identify that for the record,
please .

A Yes, this is an affidavit that my attorney handed

173

1 to me, to sign it, for the record.

2 Q Are all the statements made in that affidavit true?

3 A Yes, it is.

4 Q We would like to ask you some more questions about

5 the affidavit in one second.

6 Could you state your name for the record.

7 A Iran Barkley.

8 Q I will make a brief statement before we stert with

9 the questions.

10 The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has

11 been conducting an investigation of corruption in profes-

$ 12 sional boxing. As part of the investigation, the Subcommit-

13 tee staff has taken depositions, among other things, and the

14 Subcommittee has held a series of public hearings.

15 On December 16, 1992, the Subcommittee took Iran

16 Barkley' s deposition. That deposition has been made a part

17 of the hearing record, and we will be referring to that

18 throughout this deposition.

19 Some time after that deposition, the Subcommittee

20 subpoenaed Mr. Barkley to appear at a public hearing that was

21 held on April 1, 1993. Mr. Barkley did not appear at that

22 hearing and, for that reason, we are, today, taking his

23 deposition.

24 Mr. Barkley, I would like to start by asking you a
uiu^r reporting co. ini2 5 few questions about the Affidavit of Iran Barkley, which is

S07 C Street. N.E
STajkington , D C 20002

gas

174

Exhibit No. 1. Is it true that your attorney informed you
that the Subcommittee wanted to subpoena you to testify at a
3 I public hearing?

4 A Yeah, he informed me but, at the time that he

5 informed me, I was sick.

6 Q I will ask you the questions in a series, if you

7 can just give a yes or no answer to them.

8 Did you then authorize your attorney to accept

9 service of the subpoena on your behalf?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Did your attorney then advise you that the hearing
: 12 date had been set for April 1, 1993?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Were you intending to appear before the Subcom-

15 mittee on April 1, 1993?

16 A Yes, I was.

17 Q Is it true that, during the period immediately

18 prior to the hearing, April 1, 1993, you were in the process

19 of moving your family from Upstate New York to New Jersey?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And that, also during that period of time, you

22 contracted the flu -- a bad stomach flu -- for a period of
2 3 around 10 days?

~ 24 A Yes.
muxeh reporting co . me 5 q in your affidavit, you state that the reason that

J07 C Sitcct N E
Washington. DC 20002

175

gas

J 12

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. m£ 5
50" C Streci. N.E
Wajhinpon. DC 20002

you forgot about the hearing date was that you had the flu
and were in bed suffering from the flu.

A Yes.

Q Then is it true that you forgot about the Apr
1993, hearing date?

A Yes, I had.

Q When did you remember that there was an April 1,
1993, hearing date that you were to appear before?

A I remembered when I started seeing, you know,
and pieces on the news .

Q So you did not recall the hearing date beforev

A No.

Q During this time when you were sick with the flu
and you were moving, did you at any time try to contact your
attorney about your illness and your situation?

A Yes, I did.

Q When was this?

A This was, I think, the time before, like, 1
ill. I had spoken to my mother, and I was telling her,
because I didn't have a phone at the time -- I called her
from a pay phone -- and I told her, "I'm moving, and I'm real
sick and, if my attorney calls, just let him know, because I
don't really know what date I was supposed to go down.'

Q Did your attorney, in fact, contact you during this
period?

176

- 24

MILL£H REPORTING CO.. IN(2 5
i07 C Succt. N E.
Washington. DC 20002

A Well, he contacted my mother, and it was a message
told to me.

Q What was the message?

A The message was that I was supposed to be down
here. I then replied back to her the reason why I couldn't
come .

Q Then did your mother then communicate this to your
attorney?

A Yes, she did.

Q When it came time for the hearing, around April 1,
did you then try to contact your mother or contact anyone
about your illness?

A Yes, I stayed in contact with her, but I was like
lost in sources somewhere, you know, when I got sick. I was,
like, going back and forth hospitals. I kept missing calls
on him and he kept missing calls on me.

Q At about the time of April 1, 1993, did your
attorney call you or talk to you directly about you appear-
ing?

A Yes. He called me. He got word to me that I was
supposed to appear. My mother related the information to me,
and I then called him, when I got situated, which my phones
were still not on, yet. So I went to my mother's house and
then I contacted him.

Q What did you say to him when you contacted him

177

1 then?

2 A I told him, I said, "I have the flu and I'm very

3 sick and I'm not going to be able to make it."

4 Q When was this?

5 A I can't remember the exact date.

6 BY MR. RINZEL:

7 Q Was that after the hearing was already held?

8 A It was like after the hearing was all over and

9 everything, I guess, you know, because I told him, I said,

10 "Well, if they still want me to come, I'll come." I didn't

11 know at that time that I was supposed to appear.

12 BY MR. LORD:

13 Q Was there any way for your attorney to contact you

14 directly immediately before the hearing?

15 A No, there wasn't.

16 Q Why was this?

17 A Because I was moving and I didn't have no phones.

18 Q You mentioned that you discussed this with your

19 mother because she was relaying messages to you. Did you

20 | discuss your appearing before the Subcommittee with any other

21 individuals?

22 A No.

23 Q Did anyone discuss your appearing before the

24 Subcommittee with you?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INQ> 5 A NO .

50" C Sueet. NE
WajhtDgton. DC 20002

178

gas

9
10
11
I 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24

UB.LER REPORTING CO., INC2 5
50" C Sum. N.E
^ajhington. D C 20002

Q Did you talk to your trainer or any of the boxing
people you work with about your appearing before the Subcom-
mittee?

A I have spoke to no one but my mother. At that time
that I was supposed to appear, I felt in me I was saying,
hey, I know I'm supposed to go down there, I think. The only
other person I spoke to was my fiancee, I think. I said, "I
think I'm supposed to be there, but I don't know how to get ir
touch with --, you know, the dates or whatever." I said,
"But I'm sick and I'm lost in this thing. I am hallucinating
a little bit. I don't know. I am lost on these dates."

Q What is the name of your fiancee?

A Laura Smith.

Q At the time immediately preceding the hearing,
there were press reports about the hearings coming out .
People were talking about them. Did any of the boxing press
try to contact you about your future appearance before the
Subcommittee?

A No one. No one at all.

Q Any time after your fight On February 13th, when
you were talking to a lot of people -- you were in Las Vegas
-- did anyone talk to you then about your appearing before
the Subcommittee?

A No, nothing like that was discussed about appearing
to the Committee, or whatever. I didn't think many people

179

10
11

? 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO., In2 5
50" C Sued. N.E
qTaihingron DC 20002

knew about it .

Q Some boxing people whom we have spoken to, probab-
ly, were interested in this topic. A couple of them -- Stan
Hoffman, whom we have spoken to -- did Stan Hoffman talk to
you about your appearing before the Subcommittee?
A No, he didn't.

Q Did you talk to Stan about that?
A Never did.

Q How about your advisor, Lenny Minuto; did either of
you discuss your appearing before the Subcommittee?
A No.

Q Were you aware that Lenny Minuto had been sub-
poenaed, and he was coming to the April 1, 1993, hearing?

A No, I wasn't. I wasn't aware that he was coming to
the April 1 hearing, not at all.

q Were you aware that he was going to come to the
Senate to talk about his activities in professional boxing?

A I wasn't aware that he was even going to come. You
know, I mean, as far as I knew from Mr. Arum, I think
mentioning that I had to come to something like this, he
never mentioned that Lenny was going to be here.

q So Bob Arum was aware that you were going to appear
before the Subcommittee?

A Yeah, he gave me some papers on it or something, I

think .

180

gas

~ 24

M[U£R REPORTING CO.. mQ 5
507 CSurci. N E
Washington, D C 20002

Q What papers were those?

A That I had to come to see a Committee or something
-- a hearing or something to discuss boxing.

Q Bob Arum gave you papers regarding your appearance
before the Subcommittee?

A Not papers. He mentioned it. He had papers in his
hand saying that you might go before the Subcommittee
hearing, to hear about this boxing stuff.

Q Are you talking about newspapers or documents?

A Newspapers, like, you know, just mentioning that
you might have to go down and testify, or something.
I said, "About what?

He said, "Boxing," or something. He said, "But
it ' s nothing . "

I said, "Okay. "

Q Besides saying that it was nothing, what else did
Bob Arum tell you about testifying before the Subcommittee?

A Nothing .

Q Did Bob Arum discuss any of his meetings with the
Subcommittee?

A No.

Q Did he give you any advice --

A No.

Q -- on how you should discuss your activities with
the Subcommittee?

181

gas

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24

UIU£R REPORTING CO.. INlg 5
^0" C Street. N E
Tishington. D C 20002

A No.

BY MR. RINZEL:
Q Where was this meeting with Bob Arum? Was this in

Las Vegas?

A This was in Vegas, I believe.

Q Was this before or after your fight with Toney?

A I can't really remember. It was, like, maybe,

after. I don't know.

Q After the fight with Toney?

A It might have been after.

Q Where were you at the time? Were you in Bob Arum's

offices --

A No.

q __ or where were you?

A I think I was coming to the arena.

Q Coming to the arena?

A Like, Caesars Palace.

Q So you were — what? — in a restaurant or a room?

A No. I was getting ready to walk to, I believe, it
was like the press conference. I don't know. Like, a semi-
press conference or something.

q So this was a press conference after the fight?

A It was, like, a little press conference before the

fight, I think, in the afternoon.

Q Before the fight?

182

MILL£R REPORTING CO.. II
507 CStrm. N.E
Waihinpon, D C 20002

1 A Yeah.

2 Q And then Bob Arum was, of course, at this press

3 conference because he was the promoter of the fight; right?

4 A Yes .

5 Q Were you just together alone, or was there a group

6 of people around, or what?

7 A We was together alone. He, like, just mentioned

8 something that I might be going to a hearing.

9 Q And then he had some papers in his hand?

10 A Yeah. I don't know what the papers was. He had

11 some papers in his hand.

12 Q Did he try to show you the papers?

13 A No, he did not.

14 Q What did you think the papers were? Was he reading

15 from something or what?

16 A No . He just told me that I might have to go to a

17 hearing. I said, "Okay." I said, "I'll go." I said, "What

18 is it about?"

19 He said, "Just go."

20 Q Had you heard from your attorney before that time?

21 Were you aware already that a subpoena had been issued for

22 you for the hearing?

23 A Rightfully, I think I heard from my mother because

24 she kept saying someone was coming to the house.

'6 5 Q So you had a message from your mother about --

183

1 A A message from my mother that some --

2 Q A subpoena.

3 A She was saying cops.

4 Q Someone was trying to serve a subpoena on you .

5 A Yeah. She was saying cops and what did you do, and

6 I was, like, "I ain't did nothing."

Q So you were aware, at least, in general terms at

8 that time that you were going to be coming to the ~

9 A Yeah.

10 Q Did you tell him that you had had your deposition

111 taken? Did you tell Bob Arum that you had been down to

* 12 Washington already and talked to the Subcommittee?

13 A I told him that I've been down and had spoken to

14 the people in Washington, and I didn't think I had to go

15 back.

16 Q Did he ask you what happened or what you said?

17 A No, he did not.

18 Q Did he ask you if his name came up?

19 A No, he did not.

20 Q He didn't express any curiosity at all about what

21 you had said in the deposition?

22 A We did not have a long conversation.

23 Q I understand it was a short conversation. But, if
— 24 you told him "I was already in Washington, I had talked to

milled retortwg co . M<2 5 the Subcommittee people, I gave a deposition," he certainly

507 C Siren. N.E
Washinfion. DC 20002

184

gas

; 12

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. INC2 5
5(T C Street. NE
Wuhuifton, DC 20002

would have asked you, "Well, what happened?"

A If he asked me, I don't remember, really, but we
didn't have a long conversation on this. I said, "I ap-
peared." I just said I went down. It wasn't, like, was my
name coming up or did this happen.

Q Did he mention anything else? Did he mention Mr.
Minuto's name to you during this discussion?

A No, he did not.

Q Was Minuto around at this time?

A No, he wasn't present.

Q Was he at that press conference?

A He was at the press conference.

Q So he was in the area.

A He was in the area.

Q Did you have a discussion with Minuto about what
Bob Arum had talked to you about?

A No, I did not.

Q You never mentioned it to him?

A No, I did not .

Q Did you ever tell Minuto that you had been down at
the Senate to talk to them about boxing?

A Yeah. Everybody, you know, yeah.

Q Of course, you would have done that; right?

A Yeah.

Q You didn't try to keep it a secret from him?

185

2
3

4
5

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
50- C Sum. N.E
Wasfainfron. D C 20002

A Why should I?

Q Exactly. So my question is when did you talk to
him about it and what was the substance, or what did you talk
about? How did that conversation come about?

A To who?

Q Minuto.

A Well, I told him that Eob told me I might have to
go to Washington.

Q What did he say?

A He said, "For what?"

I said, "For the Senate hearings."
He said, "Oh, okay. "

Q He said, "Oh, okay"?

A Yeah.

Q He didn't want to know what the issue was?

A No, he did not.

Q He didn't ask you if his name was going to come up?

A No , he didn't.

Q And he didn't tell you that he had been subpoenaed
to come, too?

A No, he did not tell me.

Q He didn't tell you that?

A He didn't tell me that, no.

Q You never heard that from him at some point?

A I never heard that from him until, like the end.

65-875 0-93-7

186

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. In2 5
50" C Sticet, N E
Taihinpon. D C 20002

Oh, the end?

Yes.

When was the end?

When I heard everybody else was being subpoenaed.

How did you hear that and where did you hear that

from?

A Well, I heard it from, like, the gym talk.

Q Gym talk?

A Yeah. As a matter of fact, my trainer was saying
that he was subpoenaed.

Q Who is your trainer?

A Eddie Mustafa Muhammed. I said, "Well, if you're
subpoenaed and you gotta go down, I guess, Lenny gotta go
down. "

Q What did he say about that?

A He said, "Everybody gotta go down."

Q Didn't you think to ask Lenny what this was all
about?

A I spoke to him about it, you know, after I spoke to
Mustafa. He said, "You know, it's nothing. You know that
everybody is being subpoenaed to go down and talk about
boxing . "

I said, "Fine . "

Q Did Lenny express any concern at all? I mean, was
he a little worried about this, or did he tell you what he

187

yiLXEA REPORTING CO-
MT C Streei. N E
Tashinpion. D C 20001

1 was going to do, or what?

2 A No, he did not.

3 Q Did he say he wasn't going to talk? Did he say,

4 "I'm taking the Fifth?"

5 A No, he did not.

6 Q He didn't tell you that?

7 A No, he did not.

8 Q He didn't say anything at all about what he was

9 going to talk about?

10 A No . He just said that he was going down.
1 1 Q You know he did take the Fifth Amendment?

12 A Did he?

13 Q Do you know that?

14 A I didn't know that.

15 Q You didn't know that?

16 A No.

17 Q You have never talked to him since he came down

18 here?

19 A No , I never spoke to him.

20 Q Well, you must have spoken to him. You paid out

21 some money from this --

22 A Well, after I paid that money out, I mean, what he

23 do with his money is his business. I mean, I just pay what I

24 pay. Do you know what I am saying? Just like I paid

»€5 Mustafa, what he do with his money is his business. I never

188

gas

- 24

yiLLER REPORTING CO.. in£ 5
so" C Sirect. N E
\5Ta5hinpon , D C 20002

spoke to him about it neither. I never asked him what did
they say or, to anybody else, what did they say. We all went
about our business .

Q Did Mr. Minuto ever suggest to you that, maybe, you
should take the Fifth Amendment if you came down or not talk
about him?

A No.

Q Did he ever suggest to you, maybe, "You don't have
to go. They already took your deposition"?

A No, he did not .

Q He never said anything like that?

A No.

BY MR. LORD:

Q Along the same line of questioning. At your last
deposition, you mentioned a friendship with a John Joseph
Conti of Las Vegas; is that true?

A Yeah, I remember.

Q Were you in contact with Mr. Conti in connection
with the February 13th fight in Las Vegas?

A No.

Q Did you ever speak to him while you were out there?

A I seen John, like, one time, maybe.

Q Did Mr. Conti ever discuss your appearing before
the Subcommittee or your appearance for a deposition?

A No , he did not.

189

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. In£ 5
}07 C Sueci. NE
Washinpon. D C 20002

Q Was he aware of your appearing before the Subcom-
mittee?

A I don't think so. I don't think he was. I don't
feel that he knew. You know, he didn't mention anything to
me .

Q What was the nature of your meeting with Mr. Conti
when you were in Las Vegas?

A It wasn't a meeting. It was just that, you know,
we just talked.

Q Where did you talk?

A We always talk. Somewhere where we eat, you know,
where I eat. I got a restaurant out there that I like to eat
in. He eats in that same restaurant.

Q What restaurant is that?

A It's closed now. Marbella's.

Q Did you both have a meal together at Marbella's?

A No, we did not. I mean, we just seen each other
there, and that was that.

Q Mr. Barkley, in connection with your appearance
here today, we asked your attorney if he couldn't contact you
and ask you to bring along financial records regarding the
February 13, 1993, fight that you had against James Toney in
Las Vegas. Have you brought any of these records along with
you today?

A No. Those are the records that I have right there.

190

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN$> 5
50" C Su«l. N E
Wajhinpion, DC 20002

MR. TUOHEY: His question was did you bring those
today to this hearing.

THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah.

MR. LORD: We have two pages of documents that I
would like to mark as Exhibit No. 2 for the record.

[Exhibit No. 2 was marked for
identification. ]
BY MR. LORD:
Q Mr. Barkley, I am going to hand you what has been
marked Exhibit No. 2 and, if you could, to the best of your
ability, identify what those two pages of documents represent.

A These are advances that Arum gave me, the payment
check, the net check that he gave me.

Q These appear to be check receipts; is that true?
A Yes.

Q I am going to ask you a few questions regarding
these check receipts. It appears from the top that -- well,
let me ask this, first, just to set this up: Is it true
that, on February 13, 1993, you fought James Toney in Las
Vegas, Nevada?
A Yes.

Q Is it also true that these documents, which are
marked as Exhibit No. 2, are concerning the payments that
were made to you from that fight?
A Yes.

191

TOP RANK INC

BARKLEY, IRAN

check no oos::3

2/13/93

PURSE 2/13/93 CAESARS PAI.ACE, LV

DEDUCTIONS:

NET AMOUNT

LICENSE FEE

APPROVED ADVANCES

CK TO GOODMAN & CHESNOFF

RESERVE W/H INCIDENTALS

IBF SANCTION FEE

ANTI-DOPING

51 ,000, 000. QO

15.00
45,000.00
30,000.00
50,000.00 1
25,000.001
25,000.00 I

S 824,985

PAVEE OETATCH THIS STATEMENT BEFORE DEPOSITING

TOP RANK INC

-026357 BARKLEY, IRAN
DESCRIPTION

CHECK NO 0008637

DEDUCTIONS I NET AMCUt

, THIS STATEMENT BEFORE DEPOSITING

TOP RANK INC.

INVOICE NO

01/27/9^ 0127

00-"?"^ RARKLEY, IRAN

DESCRIPTION

rME i-.KNO 0008586

DEDUCTIONS | NET AMOU'

PURSE ADVANCE
2/13/93
LAS VEGAS, NV
403-158

192

TOP RANK INC.

00-026357 BARKLEY,

IRAN

Check nC 0006653

DATE INVOICE NO

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT DEDUCTIONS 'iE"

,.o...

02/04/98 0204 PURSE ADVANCE
2/13/93
403-158
]04/9£ 0204/A LESS MANAGER
FEE/AHMED BEY
2/13/93
406-158

10000.001 . 00i 1000C

■

iooo. oor .oo; iooo

PAYEE DETATCH THIS STATEMENT BEFORE DEPOSITING

TOP RANK INC.

00-026357 BARKLEY, IRAN

01/27/93 0127/A

DESCRIPTION

PURSE ADVANCE

2/13/93

LAS VEGAS, NV

5Q0

SE DETATCH THIS STATEMENT BEFORE DEPOSITING

00-026357 BARKLEY, IRAN

CHECK NO 0008658

DATE

INVOICE NO

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT

DEDUCTIONS , NE T AMC

02/09/9:

0209

PURSE ADVANCE
2/13/93
403-158 10000.00

10000.00

.00 1000
10000

193

2
3

- 24

MILLER REPOBT1MO CO.. INg 5
S07 C Stiecc. N.E
«ajhingrcm D C 20002

Q On the top of the first --

MR. TUOHEY: Leighton, let me just correct. These
records reflect payments in connection with the fight. Some
of them are pre-fight advances and then there is a post-fight
check.

MR. LORD: Okay. Let me clarify.
BY MR. LORD:

Q Is it correct that these check receipts identify
payments made in connection with your February 13, 199 3,
fight against James Toney?

A Yes.

Q On the top check receipt, it says that the purse,
2/13/93, Caesars Place, Las Vegas, $1 million. Is it correct
that your purse for that fight was $1 million?

A Yes.

Q Then the next line represents deductions. The
first deduction is license fee, $15. Is it correct that that
is your license fee with the State of Nevada, as a profes-
sional boxer?

A Yes.

Q The next deduction is marked as approved advances,
$45,000. Could you tell us what those approved advances are?

A Those advances that Bob Arum wrote out to me, like,
$5,000 checks for, like, to pay my sparring partners and
advance me money to live out there, and stuff like that, from

194

gas

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. in£ 5
507 C Street. N.E
Wuhington. DC 2000!

my purse.

MR. TUOHEY: I think you will find that the
underlying receipts, Dan, add up to about $35,000, and this
is all Arum had.

BY MR. RINZEL:

Q This may not be a complete set of all the documents
that you got from Top Rank, in connection with this fight.

A No.

Q Is that what you are saying?

A Yeah.

Q I noted, as Mr. Tuohey has pointed out, that the
total advances listed here as purse advances total only
$35,000; is that correct? Is that your understanding?

A Yeah.

Q From where did you get these records?

A Well, I got these records -- these are records that
I had brung back with me from Vegas that I had in my bag, but
the sheet that I was originally looking for, it was lost. I
had then called Top Rank to Federal Express me the rest of
it, so I know, you know, where I was standing. But, I guess,
it never got to me .

Q You haven't received --

A I haven't received it.

MR. TUOHEY: When it comes in, Dan, or if it
doesn't, I will call Top Rank to make sure we have a complete

195

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. In2 5
507 C Su«(. N E
WishuiEion, DC 20002

set, and I will submit them.

MR. RINZEL: We would appreciate that.
BY MR. LORD:

Q These approved advances, Mr. Barkley -- let me just
ask you very briefly -- what were these advances for?

A To pay my sparring partners, my living.

Q Whom do you go to get the advance?

A Top Rank.

Q Who in Top Rank gives you the advance?

A The accountant.

Q Who is the accountant?

A Ben.

Q What is his name?

A Ben. I don't know his last name. I just know him
as Ben.

Q Let me ask you about one specific purse advance.
On 2/4/93, on the second page, there is a purse advance for
$10,000. Then, underneath, there seems to be a $1,000
notation: "Less manager fee/Ahmed Bey." Could you explain
that purse advance for us.

A Less manager fee. That was paid to Ahmed Bey.

Q How much was paid to Ahmed Bey?

A I believe $10,000.

MR. TUOHEY: Take a look.

THE WITNESS: $1,000. Yeah, $1,000.

196

gas

- 24

MILL£fi REPORTING CO,, INg 5
507 CSirett, N.E
Washington. D C 2000;

BY MR. LORD:

Q Why was Ahmed Bey given an advance at that time?

A It wasn't like an advance. It was like the balance
of $1,000 that I owed him from the money that he was supposed
to receive.

Q Why did you owe him --

A Because he was supposed to get a cut, you know.

Q Let me back up. Who is Ahmed Bey?

A Who is Ahmed Bey?

Q Yes.

A Who is Ahmed Bey? Ahmed Bey is Ahmed Bey.

Q Would you identify your relationship to Ahmed Bey?

A I know him. He's a friend You know, he's a
friend .

Q What role does Ahmed Bey play i^n your boxing
career?

A He had played no role in my boxing career now, you
know, and he had played no role from the beginning. At the
time when I came back to boxing, Ahmed was friends with Top
Rank. At the time, Ahmed was also a friend of mine, from my
old manager John Reeze. What happened was, you know, I
didn't have nowhere else to, like, go to anyways of knowing
that, if Arum would speak to me or he would talk with
somebody else. See, Arum is a funny guy. He don't talk with
fighters. So I didn't have no other way in.

197

gas

- 24

MILl£fi REPORTING CO., INfi 5
)0" C Sum. N E
WaifiiDfton D C 20002

Q So Ahmed Bey was your go-between with Top Rank?

A Go-between Top Rank; yeah.

Q On this check receipt, it says: less manager fee.
What does that mean?

A See, Ahmed at the time and, I think, the commis-
sioner who passed away -- God bless the dead -- Chuck Minker,
at the time, me and Ahmed was going through this thing. Like
I said, I was out of the thing. Ahmed was saying that, you
know, to help me, Arum wouldn't talk to me and, at the time,
I didn't know this, so he said Arum would not speak to the
fighter and that they don't want to have anything to do with
me, so he was my go-between, to get to Top Rank.

Then, when I found out that all I had to do was
just come and talk to Arum myself, he kind of like manipu-
lated me. Like I say, he manipulated me by using his
strength, by saying, hey, Arum is not going to talk to you,
so if you let me be the go-between, you know, I want to be
your manager .

I told him, "No, I don't want you as a manager, and
I don't need you as a manager."

Q So Ahmed Bey manipulated you to make you think that
he was more important than he actually was?

A That's right.

Q But you had to pay him for his services; is that
correct?

198

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO., !N<2 5
507 CStreci. N.E
Washington D C 2000:

A Oh, yeah. Then when the services caught on to me,
after I was in already and I found out little things, I just
talked to Arum myself, and then I was highly upset with
Ahmed, and I told him at the time -- I went back to Chuck
Minker when he was still alive. I told Chuck Minker, I said,
"I don't want him as my manager, and I don't want him going
around telling people he is my manager because he is not."

Chuck Minker said to me, "Iran, you signed a
contract with him."

I said, "Yeah, but that was the deal that you told
me. You told me any time that I wanted to get rid of him I
could get rid of him."

It didn't work out that way.

Q So at one time Ahmed Bey was your manager of
record?

A Yeah, one time of record.

Q And the manager's license was filed with the Nevada
commission?

A Boxing Commission, yes.

Q Through Chuck Minker?

A Through Chuck Minker.

Q And you said that Chuck Minker had some role in
this contract. What role did he play in Ahmed Bey becoming
your manager?

A Well, Chuck Minker was, like, he was the one that

gas

199

1 said — like I told you before, I said I didn't want no

2 manager, I said, because this man is not giving me anything

3 up front, as a bonus to be my manager, and I don't think I

4 should just let him come along and let him get a free ride.

5 Q What was Chuck Minker's role?

6 A Chuck Minker's role was that he said, "Okay, Iran,

7 any time you sign this contract and any time you come to me

8 and say you don't want Ahmed no more, I will tear this

9 contract up and end of contract .

10 "Ahmed, do you understand that?"

11 "Yes."

12 "Iran, you understand that?

13 "Yes. "

14 But the man did not stick to his word. After he

15 passed on and everything, I told Ahmed myself, "You are not

16 my manager, and I don't care what the Boxing Commission has

17 said . "

18 Q Did Chuck Minker give you any advice about signing

19 the contract? Did he tell you you should sign the contract

20 at that time?

21 A At the time, he was, like, "if you don't want a

22 manager, you don't have to have a manager, but my advice to

23 you is that you have to have a manager in Nevada." You know,
— 24 that's how everything happened.

miller reporting co . inS 5 Q And you respected his advice because he was

507 C Strert. N E
Wajhinpon. D C 20002

200

- 24

MIU£fi REPORTING CO.. IN& 5
iOT C Sum. NE
Waihingron. D C 20002

speaking for the Nevada commission?

A Right.

Q This $1,000 payment that was made to Ahmed Bey on
2/4/93, was that management fees that you owed him from the
past?

A Yeah, something that he did.

Q This $1,000 payment made to Ahmed Bey that was
characterized as an advance from your Toney purse, was that
the only payment made to Ahmed Bey from your Toney purse?

A No.

Q What other payments were there?

A $30,000.

Q For the record, is that the third deduction, which
is listed as check to Goodman & Chesnoff, on Exhibit No. 2?

A Yes.

Q So what was the total amount of money that was paid
to Ahmed Bey out of your Toney purse?

A $30,000.

Q Plus the $1,000 on the second page, which is
$31,000.

A Yes.

Q Do you know why the check was made to Goodman 6.
Chesnoff?

A Because at the time Ahmed's attorney explained that
is the way he wanted the check made out to. That's what he

201

MILLER REPORTING CO.. I
W C Street. N E
*ishinfrroo D C 2000:

1 said.

2 Q Who was his attorney?

3 A Mark Wyman.

4 Q Did Mr. Wyman explain to you that the check should

5 be made from you, but it was made from Top Rank to the law

6 firm, rather than to Ahmed Bey?

7 A Right.

8 Q But it was your understanding that this was money

9 that you had owed Ahmed Bey?

10 A Yeah.

11 BY MR. RINZEL:

12 Q Is Mr. Wyman a member of Goodman & Chesnoff law

13 firm, do you know?

14 A Not that I know of. I don't think he is.

15 Q He was the attorney for Ahmed Bey?

16 A Right.

17 Q Did he explain to you why the check should be made

18 to another law firm?

19 A Because at the time I had hired Goodman out there

20 in Vegas. I had hired them, and they was doing work for me.

21 Q What kind of work were they doing for you?

22 A Negotiation work. You know, what lawyers do.

23 Q Lawyers do lots of different things. They were

24 negotiating for what?

iS5 A This deal here. They was negotiating this deal

65-875 O - 93 -

202

MILLEP REPORTING CO..
50? C Street. N E
Washington. DC 20001

n25

here .

Q You are talking about the Toney fight now?

A No, not the Toney fight. The check with Chesnoff
and Ahmed because I told -- I mean, the check with Ahmed and
me. I told Ahmed, I said, "I am not going to pay you 10
percent." I said, "Either you take 3 percent or you get

So then you were in a dispute with Ahmed over how

nothing .

Q
much --

A That's right.

Q -- you should pay him from this fight?

A Not only from this fight, but from previous fights.
You know, I said, "I don't think you should be getting paid
all this money because of the simple fact you ain't did
nothing. "

Q As far as you were concerned, he was not your
manager?

A No , he didn't do nothing. I did it.

Q You did have a prior contract -- management
contract -- with him?

A Yes, I did.

Q Was that contract voided in some way, canceled?

A In my mind, it was.

Q Well, I understand in your mind. But did you go to
the Nevada Commission and tell them?

203

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO-, INfi 5
10V C Sum NE
ttajKinfion. DC 200O2

A Yes, I did. I went to the commission and I told
them, and they were saying that you have to go through the
hearing, and you have to go through this and everything. So
what I did was I hired Chesnoff to work this deal out for me.
He worked it out for me between Ahmed Bey's lawyer and him,
and that was that .

Q How did you decide on this particular law firm?

A How?

Q Yes.

A Well, I heard about them.

Q Mr. Chesnoff is also Mr. Conti's attorney?

A Oh, he is, huh?

Q Yes.

A Well, I didn't know nothing about that.

Q Well, I am wondering how you did hear about him,
then?

A Well, I heard about him.

Q How?

A Not from Conti.

Q From whom?

A Various people. They're the biggest lawyer firm in
Vegas right now.

Q Yes, I think they are well-known.

A Some fighters that I know told me about Chesnoff
and Goodman.

204

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN(£ 5
107 CStrcti. N E
Washington, DC 20002

Q Goodman is primarily a criminal defense lawyer,
isn't he?

A Oh, really?

Q I am asking you.

A I don't know that.

Q You didn't know that?

A I didn't know that.

Q You don't know that he represents a lot of mob guys
out there?

A No, I did not.

Q You never heard that before?

A No, I did not. I mean, well, if he did, I didn't
know that .

Q Alleged mob guys; okay?

A Oh, okay.

Q Did you ever hear that?

A No. But I know that they was big criminal lawyers.
Also, he's into the boxing game. He knows about boxing. He
knew Bob Arum, and Bob Arum often, as a matter fact, recom-
mended that he was a highly respected lawyer.

Q So you talked to Bob Arum about him, and he told
you about him?

A Right.

Q That's all I asked. I want to know where you got
the recommendation from.

205

MILLER REPORTING CO ,
lOT C Street. N.E
Washington D C 2000

A Okay.

BY MR. LORD:

Q What did Ahmed Bey do in connection with the Toney-
Tiberi fight for you?

A Toney?

Q I'm sorry. Regarding the Toney-Barkley fight,
February 13th —

A Nothing.

Q -- what did Ahmed Bey do for you?

A Nothing.

Q Did he in any way train you?

A No.

Q Give you any advice about your management?

A I wouldn't let him come around me.

Q The next line on the deductions, on Exhibit No. 2,
it says: reserve w/h -- I suppose that's withhold --
incidentals. That's $50,000. Could you explain that line?

A I believe that line is for, like, when Arum puts up
the hotel rooms and stuff for when my family or someone else
-- friends or something -- that's to protect the hotel so, if
anything is, like, stolen, missing, whatever, I guess. I
don't know. I never knew what that was, you know.
BY MR. RINZEL:

Q Arum withholds from your purse $50,000, and you are
telling me you don't know what it is about? They are some

65-875 0-93-9

206

1 kind of incidentals?

2 A I don't know what them incidentals are. Do you

3 know what I'm saying? I never really, like, figured it out.

4 When you said incidentals, I was, like, more or like saying,

5 hey, maybe that's money that they just took out for the

6 hotel. That's the only thing I could gather. I don't know

7 what that is for, to tell you the truth.

8 Q Does it interest you at all?

9 A It interest me.

10 Q Are you at all concerned about the $50,000 that you

11 didn't get?

• 12 A Oh, yes, definitely. I am very interested in that

13 now. I am wondering myself, you know, where it came from.

14 Q Did you raise any questions at the time the check

15 was given to you? Was this handed to you along with the

16 check at the time after the fight?

17 A I believe so, but I didn't look at this.

18 Q You didn't have time to --

19 A No, I didn't have this check in my presence because

20 at the time I was laid up with lumps and bumps all over my

21 head.

22 Q You have to sign for the check, don't you?

23 A Yeah, I sign for it. I sign for it, like, after

24 the fight, and then the check was given to, I believe, my
miu£b reporting co.. wig 5 nephew.

507 C Sircci. N E
Vfcajhinpion D C 20002

207

gas

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO-. IN§ 5
i07 C Sikh. N.E
Washington. DC 20002

Q Your nephew? who is your nephew?

A My nephew?

Q Yes.

A Tyrone .

Q Barkley?

A Lourdes .

Q And he was out there at the fight with you?

A He's always out there at the fights with me.

Q And the commission representative gave the check to
him?

A With my authority. I told them to give him the
check. He didn't just go give it to him.

Q Have you raised any questions about this $50,000
with Mr. Arum?

A No. But I sure will, though. I don't even know
what it is .

BY MR. LORD:

Q Could the $50,000 incidentals include tickets?

A There's a possibility 'cause I did have, like, a
lot of tickets .

Q How much are a lot of tickets?

A I don't know. I bought a lot of tickets to the
fight.

Q Do you typically have to pay for the tickets you
buy from the promoter?

208

,17

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
507 C Street. NE

Washington. DC 20002

A Yes, I do.

Q Approximately how much, in the amount of money, in
tickets did you buy with regard to the Toney fight? -- a
ball-park figure.

A I have so many friends in Vegas . I might have
spent about $100,000.

BY MR. RINZEL:

Q How many people did you get tickets for?

A A lot of people. I don't even know half of the
people I was buying tickets for.

Q Did you get tickets for 10 people, 100 people, 500
people; how many people?

A Maybe 5-, 6-, 700 people.

Q 5- or 6- or 700 people you paid tickets for?

A Paid for tickets. That's me. I gotta a generous
heart .

BY MR. LORD:

Q Did you buy any expensive tickets?

A Yeah, $250 tickets, $300 tickets. It was going up
there, you know what I am saying.

Q How about parties; did you hold any parties before
or after your fight?

A No . I was too sore to have any parties?

Q Well, what about before?

A I didn't party before the fight. I don't party

209

2
3
4

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN§ 5
507 C Sueel N E
Wahinpon. D C 20002

before fights.

Q Did you hold any type of a dinner or any type of
event for your family after the fight -- any type of event?

A I might've. My nephew might've took them out or
something. I don't know.

Q Would that have been charged as an incidental?
MR. RINZEL: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
[Mr. Rinzel left the hearing room.]
MR. LORD: Back on the record.
BY MR. LORD:

Q Regarding the incidentals, again, if you were to
throw a party or to have any type of a dinner for your
relatives, would that have been charged to you by your
promotor?

A Yes, it would've.

Q In the past when you fought for Top Rank and Bob
Arum, has he held back money from your purse as incidentals?

A Yes. As far as I know, yes.

Q Do you ever have money left over from what is held
back as incidentals?

A Yes.

Q Yes , you do?

A Yeah. It all depends, if you give the party or
whatever.

210

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO., IN§ 5
50" C Sireci. N E
Wainin£ron. D C 20002

Q What do you do with any money that might be left
over from what he has held back? Does he send you a check?
Do you go collect the money?

A He sends me a check. If there was anything held
back or anything like that, he sends a check.

Q The next line of deductions is marked IBF sanction
fee, $25,000. Can you tell us what that is?

A I believe that's for them to put on the fight.
That's their sanctioning fee.

Q And IBF is the International Boxing Federation?

A Yes.

Q And you held the super middleweight title of that
sanctioning body?

A Yes .

Q And you had to pay that sanctioning body $25,000 in
connection with the fight?

A Yes .

Q The last line on the deductions is labeled anti-
doping, and it is for $25,000. Can you explain for us what
anti-doping is?

A That's your urine test and your drug test and all
of that.

Q And that costs $25,000?

A Yes, it costs you $25,000.

Q Who is that check made out to? Who is that payment

211

2
3
4

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. inc2 5
>07 CStretl, NE
Washington . D C 2000!

made to?

A I believe to the anti-doping people.

Q Would that be the State of Nevada?

A Nevada .

Q Were you given a drug test prior to this fight?

A Yes , I was .

Q After the fight?

A Yep.

Q Did you pass these tests?

A Yep.

Q Did you receive any training expenses, any training
fees in connection with the Toney fight on February 13?

A Yeah. Arum gave me $50,000 for training expenses
but, as you could see --

Q Let me ask you this first: Is the $50,000 part of
the $1 million purse, or is it in addition to the $1 million
purse?

A It's in addition to the $1 million purse, I
believe .

MR. TUOHEY: That's my understanding.
BY MR. LORD:

Q So we don't have a receipt for the $50,000 training
expense at this time?

A No, we don't.

Q Just the purse?

212

1 A Just the purse.

2 Q Top Rank paid you $50,000 in training expenses?

3 A Yes .

4 Q Did you, in fact, receive $50,000 in training

5 expenses?

6 A Yes, I did. But, after I received my trainer --

7 Q Who is your trainer?

8 A Eddie Mustafa Muhammed . He has not received his

9 pay from the last prior fight, before this fight. So I had

10 to take out of the expense money his pay, and pay him for

11 that fight, from the last fight, which left me, like,
, 12 $10,000.

13 Q Let me get this straight. You had to pay Eddie

14 Mustafa Muhammed money, and you paid him that money out of

15 your training expenses; is that correct? 1

16 A Correct.

17 Q And that was $40,000?

18 A Right.

19 MR. TUOHEY: Could I interrupt on that, Leighton?

20 MR. LORD: Sure.

21 MR. TUOHEY: Maybe I can clarify the record on

22 that.

2 3 MR. LORD: Sure.

24 MR. TUOHEY: It is my understanding that $15,000 of

mih£r reporting co. in(2 5 the $40,000 was used to pay Mustafa for a previous fight.

507 C Streci, N E
Waihingion D C 20002

213

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC? 5
W C Sum. N E
U""ashuigion. D C 20002

$25,000 of the S40,000 that went to Mustafa out of the
$50,000 training advance was an advance to Mustafa, so that,
when all was said and done at the end, after the fight, Mr.
Barkley paid Mustafa $75,000 against a $100,000 agreement --
10 percent -- $75,000 -- because $25,000 had been given as a
prefight advance.

Is the record clear?
MR. LORD: Yes, it is.

MR. TUOHEY: You can ask anything you want,
Leighton, but I just wanted to set the framework on that.
BY MR. LORD:

Q Mr. Barkley, since your attorney is not under oath,
do you agree with the statements that he has made?

A Yes .

Q We spoke to Mr. Arum at some point in connection
with the fight. Mr. Arum told us that Mr. Eddie Mustafa
Muhammed needed money for a downpayment on a house. Are you
aware of this?

A Yes.

Q And that some of the money that was going to go to
you as training expenses, in fact, went to Eddie Mustafa
Muhammed to make that downpayment on his house; is that
correct?

A Yes.

Q Mr. Arum said that, in total, Eddie Mustafa

214

2
3

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. INC? 5
107 C Street, N E
Washington. D C 20002

Muhammed received $4 0,000 out of your training expenses; is
that correct?

A Yes.

Q And that you then received $10,000?

A Yes.

Q Did Mr. Arum write you a check for $10,000?

A Yes, he did.

Q What did you do with that check?

A I stuck it in the bank.

Q What bank did you stick that in?

A Bank of America, I believe. Bank of America --
that's the name of it.

Q Do you have an account at Bank of America?

A I had an account there. Just for that time, I used
that bank for my training expenses, to move checks and stuff
through there, to pay my sparring partners and stuff like
that.

Q Let us go back now, just to clarify the record.
Top Rank, in connection with the Toney fight on February
13th, wrote you two checks; is that correct?

A What two checks they wrote me?

Q Let me go through that. They wrote you one check
for $824,985, and then they wrote you a second check for
$10,000 in training expenses; is that correct?

A Yeah, that's correct. Yeah.

215

MILL£RI

507 C Street. N.E

Washington. D C

l
2

- 24

CO.. mQ 5

Q So Top Rank wrote you two checks in connection with
that fight?

A Right.

Q Let me ask you a few questions about some of the
payouts that you then made prior to the fight. How much
money did Lenny Minuto, who you told us at your last deposi-
tion was your adviser. How much money did Lenny Minuto
receive in connection with the Toney fight on February 13,
1993?

A He had received $395,000.

MR. TUOHEY: I believe it is $295,000.
THE WITNESS: $295,000; yeah.
BY MR. LORD:

Q Mr. Lenny Minuto received $295,000; is that
correct?

A Yeah, $295,000.

Q How did you pay him this money?

A Two separate checks .

Q Two separate checks?

A Yeah. One was paid, $100,000, and one $195,000
check.

Were these checks from your personal account?

Those was in my personal account; yes.

The checks that wrote to Lenny Minuto, were they

personal checks from your account?

216

MILLER I

507 C Street. NE

Washington D C

- 24

CO.. INfi 5

A Yeah, they were from my account.

MR. TUOHEY: The question is were they personal
checks or were they other forms of checks?

THE WITNESS: They wasn't personal checks.
BY MR. LORD:

Q Were they Cashier's Checks?

A Cashiers Checks.

Q Why did you pay Mr. Minuto in Cashier's Checks as
opposed to personal checks?

A Because that's the way I paid him.

Q Did he request that you pay him with Cashier's
Checks?

A
Checks .

Q Isn't it more difficult to get'a Cashier's Check
than to just write a check from your checkbook?

A Well, I just as soon pay him like that.

Q Why?

A I don't know. I just did it. I just, you know,
thought it was the right thing to do, and I just did it.

Q But it is more difficult to get a Cashier's Check
than just write a check on your bank account; is that
correct?

A Meaning?

Q You have a checkbook, is that correct, on your bank

No, he did not request that I pay him Cashier's

217

2
3

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO INc2 5
S07 C Sum. N E
Washington. D C 20002

account?

A Yeah.

Q You could just write a check out and hand it to Mr.
Minuto, or you have to go to the bank and have the bank fill
out a cashier's check. So it is more difficult to do it that
way than to just write a check from your account -- that is
what I am asking -- is that correct?

A Oh, yeah, it's more difficult that way.
Q I am just asking why you go to that extra hassle
and expense for yourself?

A It was no hassle.

MR. TUOHEY: Excuse me for a second.
[Witness and his counsel conferred.]
BY MR. LORD:
Q Did you pay Eddie Mustafa Muhammed with a Cashier's
check?

MR. TUOHEY: Excuse me for a second.
[Witness and his counsel conferred.]
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I paid Mustafa with a personal
check. I wrote a check and wired it to him. That's the way
he wanted it.

BY MR. LORD:
Q When you pay your bills and pay the telephone
company and things like that, do you typically do that with a
personal check?

218

1 A Yeah. I don't handle the checks and pay my bills.

2 My fiancee does that.

3 Q But she does that with personal checks --

4 A Yeah.

5 Q from your checking account?

6 A The checking account, yes.

Q Do you pay anyone other than Mr. Minuto with

8 cashier's checks?

9 A No . I mean, if someone asks me to pay them with a

10 cashier's check, I have paid, you know, car dealers with a

11 cashier's check and stuff like that, and I didn't think there

12 was anything wrong with it.

13 Q I am not trying to say there is anything wrong with

14 it. I am just trying to understand why you would go to that

15 extra trouble to pay your advisor with a cashier's check

16 rather than a personal check?

17 A To me , I didn't think it was no trouble. I just

18 paid him like that.

19 Q Did Mr. Minuto want you to pay him that way?

20 A No, he did not.

21 Q You said that you gave Mr. Minuto two checks. The

22 first one was for $100,000. Were these two checks for

23 different purposes? Were you paying him for different

24 reasons? Why did you pay him in two checks?
miller reporting co.. wfi 5 a Because there was different reasons.

50? C Succi. N E
Washington. D C 20002

219

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. INc2 5
SO" C Street. N E
ttasrunrton. D C 20002

Q That's what I want to ask about.
A Yeah, there was different reasons.

Q And so you paid Mr. Minuto two checks because each
check represented a --

A A different reason.

Q --a different reason. Right.

The first check for $100,000, what was that payment

for?

A That was the payment for the fight, I guess. You
know, that was the payment for the fight.

Q For the Toney fight?

A For the Toney fight.

Q What was your agreement with Mr. Minuto? How much
were you going to pay him? Were you going to pay him a
percentage, or were you going to pay him a set amount?

A I was paying him a percentage.

Q What percentage?

A Well, it was supposed to have been 10 percent.

Q 10 percent of $1 million?

A Right.

Q Which would be $100,000?

A Right.

Q So the $100,000 represents your payment to Mr.
Minuto as your advisor in connection with the fight?

A Right.

220

gas

— 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. INC2 5
}0? C Street. N E
^airufigton. DC 20002

Q What was the $195,000 payment for?

A Well, that was for payments that I had owed him
for, you know, bills that he did for me: my surgery, he took
care of me, he fed me, clothed me, and gave me, you know,
money to live, apartment out in Vegas.

Q So the $195,000 represents money you owed to Mr.
Minuto; is that correct?

A Yeah. I wouldn't say owed. I mean, that I
borrowed -- I guess that I, you know owed-- if you want to
say it like that.

Q But, if there is a better way to say it, I --

A I don't know a better way to say it. But I'm
saying I don't want it to look, like, shaky.

Q Well, it's not shaky. I owe Mr. Levin $5 right
now, and it is not shaky.

A All right. Owed. Then that's what I am saying,
owed .

Q You said one of the things you owed him money for
was your eye operation?

A My eye surgery.

Q At the last deposition, you said that was ap-
proximately $6,000; is that correct?

A Possibly, six-, maybe, more. I don't know. We
didn't have no receipts.

Q In the range of $6,000; is that accurate?

221

gas

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO., mg 5
507 C Sued. N E
lashingion. DC 20002

A The eye operation could have been anywhere from
ten-, maybe six-/seven thousand. I don't know.

Q In the range of $10,000?

A Right, from the visits and everything and stuff
like that.

Q And you say he also helped pay expenses like food
and apartment rent?

A Right, apartment rent and stuff like that.

Q What other expenses did he pay for you?

A He just gave me expense money, you know, to live.

Q What type of expense of money? How much are we
talking about?

A Sometimes he gave me, like, $5,000 to clean up all
my bills and stuff; $300 here, $700 here, maybe $1,000 here
sometimes. I don't know.

Q What was the largest amount of money that Mr.
Minuto ever loaned you?

A The largest amount?

Q Yes.

A $5,000.

Q Did Mr. Minuto keep records of the money that he
loaned you and advanced you?

A I believe that he didn't keep records like that.
You know, he probably did. He might 've kept records because
I felt that I didn't have to keep no records with him.

222

1 Whatever he said that I owed him and when he pulled out the

2 records to show me and went over it and everything, it

3 refreshed my memory.

4 Q So he did have records of the money?

5 A Yeah, he did. He remembered the records. I didn't

6 have no records .

Q There wasn't any reason for you to keep them

8 because you owed him.

9 A I didn ' t have no records .

10 Q Did you agree with him that you did owe him

11 $195,000? Did you agree? Did that make sense when you saw
\ 12 his records that you did, in fact, owe him that amount of

13 money?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Did Mr. Minuto charge you any interest for the

16 loans he had given you over this period of time?

17 A No, he did not.

18 Q So there were no interest payments included in the

19 money you paid him?

20 A No interest payments, no nothing. It was just like

21 it was .

22 Q Did any friends, relatives, associates of Mr.

23 Minuto ever loan you money?
— 24 A No.

miixer reporting co.. in<2 5 Q Did Mr. Minuto ever arrange for other people to

>cr C Sueci. N.E
WubicgTon, D C 2000;

223

gas

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN& 5
507 CSntti, NE
Wishinpon. DC 20002

loan you money?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Minuto receive any other money in connec-
tion with your fight, directly from the promoter Bob Arum?

A No.

MR. TUOHEY: Not that you know of.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of. No, not that I
know of .

BY MR. LORD:

Q Mr. Arum told us that Mr. Minuto was going to
receive $150,000 directly from him in connection with the
Toney fight. Are you aware of this payment?

A Not that I know of .

Q Mr. Arum said that the payment was going to be
termed a co-promotional payment. Do you know what that
means? Do you know what it means to be a co-promotional
payment?

A No.

Q Mr. Arum also told staff that, in the course of the
negotiations for the Barley-Toney fight, you were a part of
those negotiations and that you were aware of the fact that
Mr. Minuto was going to get a co-promotional payment directly
from Top Rank.

A Bob Arum is a liar because I was not aware of that
he was going to get money from -- that Mr. Minuto was going

224

gds

_ 24

MILIEH REPORTING CO.. \H& 5
Uajhrnpon D C 2O0O2

to receive money -- where?

Q From Top Rank. It was going to be a payment made
by Top Rank. Not out of your purse, but out of the promoter's
share of the profits?

A I never heard of that. I never heard of that.

Q So, in the course of the negotiations with Top Rank
and Bob Arum -- and I assume Mr. Minuto was present; is that
correct?

A [No response . ]

Q When you were negotiating with Mr. Arum about the
fight, I assume Mr. Minuto was present; is that correct?

A Oh, yeah, he was present.

Q Did the topic of Mr. Minuto receiving a payment
from Mr. Arum ever come up?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Minuto ever discuss with you his receiving
a payment directly from Bob Arum?

A No.

Q So, to your knowledge, the money that you paid Mr.
Minuto is the only money Mr. Minuto received in connection
with your fight?

A That is it.

BY MR. LEVIN:

Q Mr. Barkley, were you involved with the negotia-
tions for the Barkley-Toney fight with Bob Arum?

225

gcs

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
507 C Suect. N.E
Washington. D C 20002

Was I involved?

Yes.

Yeah, with Bob Arum. Yeah, I was there. I was

A
there .

Q Who else was there?

A It was me, Mustafa, and Minuto.
BY MR. LORD:

Q Mr. Arum also told us that the fight would not
happen unless he paid Minuto this extra amount of money. Is
that true?

A That's baloney. That is garbage. You know, that
is garbage. And Mr. Arum knows it is garbage because of the
simple fact the fight was already signed, sealed, and
delivered.

Q This is prior to the fight. This is when the
negotiations were taking place. He said that he had to agree
to pay Mr. Minuto a sum of money out of his share, or you
wouldn't fight. The fight wouldn't happen.

A I had no knowledge of that, you know, and I never
heard of that. And that's a lie.
BY MR. LEVIN:

Q To your knowledge, were you present at all meetings
which occurred between Top Rank and your representatives
regarding the Barkley-Toney fight?

A Yes , I was .

226

gas

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. Inc2 5

507 CStimi N.E

* aihuipon D C 2000:

MR. TUOHEY: Let me interrupt here. Be careful
about this .

BY MR. LEVIN:
Q I am asking just what you know.

MR. TUOHEY: There could have been meetings that
you didn't know about.

THE WITNESS: Maybe there was. I am saying to my
knowledge, to the best of my knowledge.
BY MR. LEVIN:
Q There were no meetings --
A There was no meetings --

Q -- that you did not attend regarding the negotia-
tions for the Barkley-Toney?

A That's right. Yeah.

Q And you don't recall any discussions about any
separate payments, apart from the purse, that were going from
Top Rank to Lenny Minuto?
A No, I don't.
BY MR. LORD:
Q Mr. Barkley, this is in a previous deposition, but
let me just repeat it for this record that we are creating
today. You told us the last time that Mr. Minuto is your
adviser; is that correct?
A Yes .
Q Mr. Minuto does not serve as your manager; is that

227

2
3

4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
507 C Street. NE
Washington. D C 20002

correct?

A Yes.

Q Also, in that deposition, on page 42, your answer
starting on line 17, you were explaining that -- and I am
reading from line 20.

MR. TUOHEY: You are talking about Mr. Minuto?
MR. LORD: Yes.
BY MR. LORD:
Q "And I know the game, and Lenny, he's learning, you
know, from what we have showed him, and he sits in with us
and we talk, you know."

Starting on line 20 and 21. You are saying that
Mr. Minuto doesn't know a whole lot about the sport of
boxing. He's learning the sport of boxing from you and Eddie
Mustafa Muhammed . Is that a correct characterization of that
testimony?

A Just about, yes. That's correct, yes. That's
correct .

Q So you would agree that Mr. Minuto does not know a
lot about the sport of boxing?
A No , he don ' t .

Q And that he is learning the sport from you --
A Yes .

Q -- among other people?
A Among what other people?

228

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
»7 C Succt. N E
Washmgton D C 20003

5 7

Q He's learning the sport of boxing from you, among
other people?

A Oh, yeah. It's not hard to learn this game. Like
I explained to him, you know, "the more you be around me and
the more that you go to fights, you'll learn the game."

Q So Mr . Minuto is learning?

A That's right.

Q My question to you, Mr. Barkley, is, if Mr. Minuto
doesn't know the sport of boxing very well. He is learning.
You are teaching him. Why do you pay him $100,000 in
connection to one of your fights?

A Well, see, you say, you know, why do I pay him
this. You know, if it was not for this man, I would not be
back in boxing.

Q Explain that for us, please.

A I mean, with my eye surgery and everything, you
know, this man came along and allowed me to box again,
allowed me to fight, you know, and it don't take a knowledge-
able man to know that. You know, it took a friend like him
to come and say, "Hey, you want to fight again?"

I said, "No, I don't really want to fight. You
know, I don't want to fight."

But he said, "Iran, I don't want to see you waste
your talent . "

You know what I'm saying? And I don't see there is

229

gas

1
2
3
4

- 24

MIU-ER REPORTING CO., INtfi 5
50" C Street. N E
Washington, D C 20002

anything wrong with it. At the time, I didn't have it to do
it. You know, I didn't have it to do it.

Q At this time, did Mr. Minuto lend you money?

A At this time?

Q At that time, when you were contemplating retire-
ment from boxing and Mr. Minuto came to you and told you he
didn't want you to waste your talent, was that the point when
he was lending you money, helping you get on your feet?

A He was, like, helping me get on my feet. I didn't
see anything was wrong with it.

Q I am not saying there is anything wrong with it. I
am just trying to understand.

A Oh, okay. But I am saying, yeah. You know, at
that time, he came along, and we was already friends. And,
you know, he just didn't want to see me go the wrong way, so
he kept me on the right track.

Q So Mr. Minuto is more sort of a personal advisor,
personal friend to you than a boxing advisor; is that
correct?

A That's right.

Q At your last deposition, and I won't go to the page
numbers, but you also told us that Mr. Minuto gave you
investment advice from time to time; is that correct?

A Yes .

Q In connection with your SI million purse from the

230

1 Toney fight, has Mr. Minute given you any investment advice?

2 A No. Basically, the advice that he passed on to me,

3 I basically know now how to do it myself.

4 Q So Mr. Minuto has not given you any advice on how

5 to spend your million-dollar purse?

6 A No. If I need to ask him a question or something,

7 you know, he'll probably advise me or something.

8 Q Mr . Minuto did attend the fight, didn't he?

9 A To the best of my knowledge, he did. I was in the

10 ring.

11 Q Right. But he was in Las Vegas at the time when

12 you were getting ready for the fight.

13 A Yeah.

14 Q So, to the best of your knowledge, he did attend

15 the fight?

16 A Yeah, he did.

17 Q Do you know if Mr. Minuto is involved with any

18 other boxers at this time?

19 A I don't know. At this time, as far as I know, not

20 that I know of.

21 Q In the past, was Mr. Minuto ever involved with a

22 boxer named Dennis Milton?

23 A Dennis was his fighter, yeah.

24 Q Is he still involved with Dennis Milton?
mill£r reporting co., rnfi 5 a As far as I know, I guess he is.

10' C Street N E
Wuhingion, D C 20002

231

2
3

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO., IN& 5
507 C Street. N E
Washington, DC 20002

Q Is Dennis Milton still boxing?

A No, he is not. He took a little leave of absence
for a minute.

Q How about Roberto Duran . Has Mr. Minuto ever been
involved with Roberto Duran?
A No.

Q Does he know Roberto Duran?
A He met him.

Is he friends with Roberto Duran?

What do you call a friend? Everybody is a friend.
Well, I am not a friend of Roberto Duran's. Does
he meet with Roberto socially?
A No, he don't.

Does he have meals with Roberto Duran?
Not that I know.

Does he ever give advice to Roberto Duran?
Not that I know of.

Does he ever negotiate on behalf of Roberto Duran?
A Not that I know of.

Q But you do know that he knows Roberto Duran?
A I know he met him one time.

Q How about a Cuban heavyweight named Gonzales --
Jorge Gonzales; is Mr. Minuto in any way involved with Jorge
Gonzales?

A Not that I know of.

232

ga£

MILL£R REPORTING CO., I
50" C Sireei, N E
Washington. DC 20002

1 Q Are you aware of the boxer?

2 A Yeah, I'm aware of Jorge. Yes.

3 Q And he is managed by someone named Luis Cubas .

4 A Luis Cubas.

5 Q Yes, C-u-b-a-s . Also, from Cuba.

6 A Yes.

7 Q Do you know Luis Cubas?

8 A I met the man, yeah.

9 Q Are you aware that Mr . Minuto is involved with Luis

10 Cubas in any way?

11 A Not that I know of.

12 Q Can you think of any other boxers that Mr. Minuto

13 is involved with at this time?

14 A The only boxer I know he was, like, being with me

15 and, as far as Dennis, I don't know any other fighter.

16 Q Does Mr. Minuto have any relatives who are in the

17 boxing business?

18 A Not that I know of.

19 Q Do you know, I believe, it's a cousin of Mr.

20 Minuto ' s named Marco Minuto?

21 A Marco Minuto?

22 Q Marco Minuto. Have you ever met a Marco Minuto,

23 who is related to Lenny Minuto?

24 A No, I haven't.

'25 Q Marco Minuto, until about a year ago, was a manager

233

gas

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. In£> 5
50" C Strcci. N E
Waihinpon D C 20002

-- a boxing manager -- licensed to manage boxers in New York
state. Have you ever heard of Marco Minuto?

A No.

Q Lenny Minuto has never discussed his relative Marco
with you?

A No.

Q A few questions about Stan Hoffman. Did you have
any contact with Stan Hoffman in connection with the Toney
fight?

A No.

Q Did Stan Hoffman perform any services for you in
connection with the Toney fight?

A No . I don't know why he would because he didn't
work for me .

Q Bob Arum, again, told staff that Hoffman was to
paid a total of $50,000 in connection with your fight with
James Toney. $25,000 was to come out of the Minuto share,
and $25,000 was going to be paid by him. Are you aware that
Bob Arum and Top Rank were going to pay Stan Hoffman in
connection with your Toney fight?

A No, I wasn't.

Q Did Stan Hoffman ever call you, ever talk to you on
a phone -- any type of contact -- in connection with the
Toney fight?

A I talked to Stan one time.

234

gas

- 24

yiLLEH REPORTING CO.. wfi 5
50" C StICCI, N E
STuhinpron D C 20002

Q
A
going? "

Do you remember what you talked about?

"How 'ya doing? How ' ya feel? How's the training

"Fine . "

You know, the usual stuff.
Q Did Stan Hoffman give you any advice about how you
should be training, how you should be eating -- things like
that?

A No.

Q Do you remember approximately when that conversa-
tion took place?

A Well, at the time, Stan had a fighter that was
living in my house with me.
Q Who was that?

A Ricky Myers. And he used to cail there for him a
lot. I asked Stan then, "What's up? How's things going?"
"Oh, fine. How's training going?"
"Great. "

"How's Ricky doing?"
"He ' s fine . "
Q Did Stan ever come by while you were training, to
see you while you were training, watch you train, for the
Toney fight?

A For the Toney fight?
Q Yes.

235

2
3

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. INC2 5
™ - C Socci. N E
5"ashinpion D C 20002

A No . I ain't see him nowhere around.

Q Did he ever visit you in your hotel when you were
staying in Las Vegas, come by and see you?

A I didn't stay in the hotel.

Q In your apartment, in Las Vegas?

A No.

Q He never came by and visited you?

A No.

Q We had heard that, at one point prior to the Toney
fight, you were having weight problems; is that correct?

A Last memories. Yeah.

Q At one point, you were somewhere in the range of
189 pounds; is that correct?

A I wouldn't say that much. I would say about
175/176.

Q Is it correct that you had to be at 168 pounds to
fight at super middleweight; is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q Did Stan Hoffman in any counsel or help you with
your diet?

A No , he did not.

Q Were you on any special diet program to try to lose
weight while you were preparing for the fight?

A My diet.

Q What is that?

236

gas

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. INc2 5
W7 C Street. N E
ttuhinpton D C 20002

A Good ole abilene and good ole sweating and hard
work.

Q Did anyone give you any advice or did you at any
time start eating large amounts of sherbet in connection with
your trying to lose weight?

A I ate that sherbet at the last day of the fight --
not the last day of the fight -- a day before the weigh-in
that night. I weighed at 168 pounds but, in the course of me
leaving to go weigh in, I had gotten hungry. So I took the
sherbet ice cream and I ate it, and it put the weight back on

Q So no one gave you the advice of eating sherbet to
lose weight at the time you were training?

A No.

Q And you were not on the sherbet diet for the *
prior to the fight?

A No.

Q In your last deposition, you stated -- and this is
on page 41, at the bottom. At some point, we were talking
about Stan Hoffman and what role he played.

MR. TUOHEY: You are not on page 41.
MR. LORD: No, we are not.
BY MR. LORD:

Q In that deposition, you stated that Stan Hoffman
played no role in your career at that time. This is December
16th. Is that correct?

237

2
3

19
20
21
22
23
- 24

MILL£R REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
507 C Sum. N E

A No role?

Q Staff Hoffman played no role in your career.

A No.

Q Since that deposition, December 16, has Stan
Hoffman played any role in your career?

A No.

Q Is there any reason that Stan Hoffman would have
received payments in connection with you as a fighter?

A I don't know what reason would somebody pay Stan
Hoffman that type of money in connection with my fight when
the man has nothing to do with me.

Q Could Lenny Minuto, to the best of your knowledge,
have arranged for Stan Hoffman, to receive payment in
connection with your fight?

A No. No.

Q Why do you say that?

A Because I know he wouldn't have arranged nothing
like that, and I know all ties was broken with me and him and
Stan. I know that for a fact. No, he wouldn't. No.

Q Have you ever heard anyone refer to Mr. Minuto as a
mob guy, as a La Cosa Nostra member, as a mafia member?

A No , I haven't.

Q Have you ever heard of anybody refer to him as sort
of a tough guy, a guy that you better pay or there is going
to be trouble?

65-875 O - 93 - 10

238

MILLER REPORTING CO.,
}07 C Sttcci. N E
4-ubincion D C 2onc

1
2

«2 5

A No . I mean Mr. Minuto is not like that.

Q Eddie Mustafa Muhammed how much money did he
receive in connection with the Toney fight?

A What was down there. He was supposed to get 10
percent of the fight.

Q So his total would have been $100,000; is that
correct?

A Yes.

Q Did you write Mr. Mustafa Muhammed a check after
the fight?

Yes, I did.

How much was that check for?

I believe it was for 75-.

75-?

MR. TUOHEY: He testified $75,000.

BY MR. LORD:

$75,000.

Yes.

Is it, also, correct that you had paid Mr. Mustafa
Muhammed the additional $25,000 you owed him out of the
training expenses?

A Training expenses.

Q What did Mr. Mustafa Muhammed do for you in
connection with the Toney fight?

A He trained me for the fight.

239

MILL£R REPORTING CO

in2 5

507 C Street N E

Was he training you on a daily basis?

A Every day.

Q He was with you every day?

A Every day.

Q Did he help you make weight?

A I practically would say he might have took most of
the weight out of me that I didn't have to drain them four
pounds off.

Q How about John Joseph Conti did he receive any
payments in connection with the Toney fight?

A No, he did not.

Q Did you owe him any money?

A No , I did not.

Q I just want to ask a few more questions regarding
Mr. Minuto before we finish up. Have you ever gambled with
Mr. Minuto?

A No, I haven't.

Q Have you ever played the tables in Las Vegas with
Mr. Minuto?

A No.

Q Atlantic City?

A I'm not a gambler.

Q Have you ever placed any kind of bet through Mr.
Minuto?

A No, I have not placed any bets through Mr. Minuto.

240

gas

1
2

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
107 C Sircci. N.E

Q Are you aware that Mr. Minuto has been arrested and
convicted, I believe, it is some seven times for gambling-
related offenses?

A I have never known that .

Q You have no knowledge that Mr. Minuto has been
arrested?

A No knowledge whatsoever of that.

Q Have you ever known or has anyone ever told you
that Mr. Minuto is a book maker or a bookie? Have you ever
heard that?

A No, I never heard that.

Q Do you know what a bookie or a book maker is?

A No.

Q You have no knowledge what a book maker or a bookie
is?

A No, what is it?

Q Someone who takes bets, takes illegal bets, takes
bets on horses, on numbers, on different things like that,
football games.

A No.

Q So you have no knowledge that Mr. Minuto is in any
way connected with book making?

A No knowledge whatsoever.

Q Had you ever heard that Mr. Minuto was convicted of
bribing a public official?

241

MILLER REPORTING CO
}07 C Street, N E

2
3
4

19
20
21
22
23
- 24
5

A No.

Q Has Minuto ever given you the option to place a bet
with him or any of his associates?

A Never. I have never known nothing like that.

Are you aware that the April 1, 1993 hearing before
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, there was
testimony to the effect that Mr. Minuto is an associate of
the Luchese organized crime family? Are you aware of that?

A No.

Q Has anyone told you that there was testimony to the
effect that Mr. Minuto was associated with the Luchese
organized crime family?

A No one told me.

Q Have you ever heard it or read it anywhere?

A No, I never read it, never heard it, never seen it.

Q There was also testimony to the effect that Mr.
Conti is a member of the Luchese organized crime family. Are
you aware of that?

A No.

Q Have you ever read anywhere or heard that Mr. Conti
is a member of the Luchese organized crime family?

A No.

Q Let me just ask you a few finish-up questions, and
then I will let Mr. Levin ask you if he has any.

What is the future, as far as your boxing career is

242

12
13
14
15
16
17
IE
19
20
21
22
23
- 24

MIILER REPORTING CO . 1nc2 5
)07 C Suect. N E

concerned?

A What is my future?

Q Yes .

A I intend to, like I had a deviated septum nose
operation done from the last fight, and I intend to continue
on boxing. I am going to move up to cruiser weight and that
is that.

Q So you are going to continue with your career as a
professional boxer?

A Yes .

Q Is Mr. Minuto going to continue to serve as your
advisor?

A No.

Q Why is that?

A Because, man, I can advise myself.

Q Is Mr. Minuto going to continue to receive any
payment from you in connection with your boxing purses?

A No.

Q Is Mr. Eddie Mustafa Muhammed going to continue to
receive any payment from you?

A Yes.

Q In what capacity?

A As my trainer still .

MR. LORD: I don't have any further questions.
BY MR. LEVIN:

243

4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. IN<2 5
50: C Slictl. N.E

Q Let me just ask you a couple questions, Mr. Barkley,
about the second payment that you made to Mr. Minuto, which
was $195,000.

A Yes.

Q You said that was for money that you owed him for
various loans, which you characterized as your surgery, your
rent, food. Do you remember the time frame during which Mr.
Minuto loaned you that money? Are we talking about several
years or are we talking about a couple of months?

A You are talking about several years during the time
that I was coming back to fight from my operation. We are
talking about years.

Q When did you have the eye surgery? Roughly what
year, do you remember?

A The first one?

Q The one that Mr. Minuto loaned you the money for.

A I think two Christmases or four Christmases or
something like that.

Q Of 199 1 or something like that?

A Maybe like --

Q You said the first one was there more than one?

A Yes. I had two operations.

Q Did Mr. Minuto loan you money for both of those
operations?

A No, he didn't.

244

1 Q Which one did he loan you money for?

2 A The second one .

3 Q And that is the one you said was roughly two

4 Christmases ago?

5 A Yeah, probably two Christmases or whatever.

6 Christmas -- I tend to forget .

7 Q So the $195,000 was money that has accumulated over

8 a couple of years that he has loaned you for various purposes

9 A You know, various purposes like I take care of two

10 families. I take care of like my family and my mother and

11 like where she live she got bills and stuff. She don't work

12 or nothing, and she has got bills and stuff, and things was

13 all backed up. I just borrowed maybe like $5,000 here,

14 $2,000 here, $1,000 here. He just kept a record, and I just

15 paid off her bills, paid off mine and that is that.

16 Q Now, when he loaned you this money, was it with the

17 understanding that you would pay it back?

18 A Yeah.

19 Q And with the understanding that he would keep track

20 of how much you owed him?

21 A With the understanding that he would keep track of

22 how much I owed him because I am not a good track record, and

23 I said, "You know, hey, whatever I owe you, I pay you back. "
— 24 Q When you paxd him the $195,000, did that clean the

MIU.ER REPORTING CO.. INCL 5 Slate?
507 C Sirtci. N E

245

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO . INC 5
jm C Sirrti. N E

A Yes, it did. It should have.

Q So, as of now, you don't owe Mr. Minuto any money.

A Nothing.

Q And he, I understand from your response to Mr.
Lord's question, that he is not going to play any role in
your career from now on; is that correct?

A No.

Q That is correct or that is not?

A That is correct.

Q That is correct.

A That is correct that he is not playing any role in
my career any ways . I mean we are friends and that is what
it is going to be.

Q So you don't plan on making any future payments to
Mr. Minuto.

A No.

Q What about Mr. Hoffman's role in your future boxing
career?

A No.

Q Have you discussed with Mr. Hoffman your future
plans for boxing?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Hoffman speak with you at all the week
before the Toney fight when you were in training?

A No, because I don't talk to nobody then.

246

- 24

MILLER REPORTING CO.. INc2 5
507 C Sueet, N E

Q You said you had one phone call when he called your
house --

A My house for Ricky Myers, yeah.

Q Do you remember --

A I don't know if that was like the week before the
fight .

Q Was it pretty close to the fight -- somewhere
around that time?

A It was pretty close. It was somewhere around there

Q And that was the only contact that you had with Mr.
Hoffman prior to the Toney fight.

A Yes .

Q Did Mr. Hoffman indicate to you at that time that
Bob Arum had asked him to get in touch with you regarding
your training for the Toney fight?

A No.

Q He was just calling to ask for Ricky Myers.

A Ricky Myers .

Q So Mr. Hoffman never called you directly in the
couple weeks or so prior to the Toney fight.

A No.

Q Alter the Toney fight, have you had any discussions
with Mr. Hoffman?

A No.

Q In the negotiations that went on between your

247

1 people and Top Rank for the Toney fight, do you recall any

2 discussions regarding payments to be made to Stan Hoffman?

3 A No.

4 Q Whether by Top Rank, whether by you, whether by Mr.

5 Minuto?

6 A No.

Q Did Mr. Hoffman's name come up at all in the

8 negotiations?

9 A No.

10 Q And he was not present at all during any of the

11 negotiations.

12 A Not present, not around, not heard of.

13 MR. LEVIN: Okay.

14 BY MR. LORD:

15 Q One quick thing. Did anyone discuss with you,

16 besides your attorneys, your appearing for this deposition

17 today?

18 A No.

19 Q Did you talk to Mr. Minuto about your appearing

20 here today?

21 A No.

22 Q Mr. Arum?

23 A No, nobody knows.

— 24 Q I assume your fiance might know.

miujr retorting co. w2 5 A She is the only one that knows because she knew I

107 C Street. N E

248

gas

1 had to go because he called.

Q So no one else discussed this appearance with you.

A No.

Q I would like to finish by saying you will give us

5 any additional financial records that you find in connection

6 with the Toney fight?
A Yes, I will, anything that I find.
Q So we can put it on the record and complete

9 everything .

MR. TUOHEY: Yes.
MR. LORD: Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m, the proceedings were
13 adjourned. ]

MILLER REPORTING CO . INC
507 C Succi. N E
Whinrinn fl C 2nnn:

249

CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

I, GWEN A. SCHLEMMER, the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was
taken, do hereby testify that the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing
deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken by me
stenogTaphicaUy and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said
deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither
counsel for, related to, nor employed by and of the parties to the action in which
this deposition was taken; and further, that I an not a relative or employee of any
attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto nor financially or otherwise
interested in the outcome of the action.

GWEN A. SCHLEMMER

Notary Public in and for
the District of Columbia

+,\y

My commission expires: February 28, 1995

250

Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations

pmSH # 2-0

Louis J DiBella

Vice President. General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officet

March 26, 1993

BY MESSENGER

Stephen H. Levin

Counsel

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

193 Senate Russell Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-6262

Dear Mr. Levin:

After reviewing the Staff Statement presented to the
Subcommittee on March 10, 1993, we would like to make certain
clarifications with regard to parts of the statement which relate
to the business of Time Warner Sports (HBO and TVKO) . We would
greatly appreciate your making this letter a part of the record.

On page 31 of the statement it states "Most television
networks contract with boxing promoters to put fights
together. .. .Time Warner Sports (HBO and TVKO) , does things
differently." The facts do not bear out this assertion. The
overwhelming majority of HBO and TVKO contracts are entered into
solely with boxing promoters. Contrary with the assertion on page
31 that Time Warner Sports negotiates with boxers, this has never
been the case (except when we contract with boxers to function as
announcers or make personal appearances at trade functions on
behalf of HBO or TVKO) . George Foreman, Marvin Hagler, and Sugar
Ray Leonard co-signed contracts which HBO negotiated with their
promotional representatives and not with the fighters themselves.
Their signatures, evidencing acceptance and agreement with the
terms of their television contracts with HBO, were necessitated by
the nature of their relationships with their promoters. Foreman
and Hagler were working with their promoter, Top Rank, Inc., on a
fight-by-fight basis; their promoter was not able to bind them on
a multi-fight basis without their explicit agreement. Similarly,
Ray Leonard chose to have a lawyer/advisor handle his television
negotiations, not a promoter. Thus, in these limited
circumstances, it was necessary for the boxers to sign the
contracts. The Staff Statement states "Other television networks

Time Warner Sports

1100 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 (212) 512-1868

251

explained that they generally contract with the promoter, who then
deals with the boxers."; this statement is unequivocally true with
respect to both HBO and TVKO.

The statement also suggests that HBO and TVKO behave
differently than other programmers in taking an active roll in
suggesting attractive matchups. It is our belief that all
programmers involved in telecasting boxing attempt to arrange for
matches which they view as having the greatest fan appeal.
"Matchmakers" go beyond normal programming functions and arrange
for bout agreements with particular fighters and managers. We,
like other telecasters of boxing, rely on promoters to handle such
arrangements and have never functioned as "matchmakers".

The report further asserts that Time Warner Sports "enters
into multiple fight or so-called option contracts with boxers...."
Again, our multi-fight agreements are negotiated with, and entered
into with, promoters. The term "option contracts" has a specific
meaning in boxing. It refers to contractual relationships in which
promoters and/or managers, as partial consideration for entering
into a co-promotion or agreeing to a particular bout, acquire a
continuing controlling or financial interest in future bouts
engaged in by the opposing fighter should he defeat their fighter.
HBO and TVKO have never been parties to such "option contracts".
For example, in the event that Heavyweight Champion Riddick Bowe
were to be defeated in an HBO or TVKO bout under his promoter's
present multifight deal with HBO and TVKO, we would have no future
rights with respect to the fighter who takes his title. We have
simply entered into multi-fight agreements with promoters. These
agreements are television license agreements and nothing more.
While many of our multi-fight agreements have required exclusivity,
these agreements have involved consecutive fights over a reasonable
period of time (i.e., establishing the type of exclusivity that
another programmer might have with a particular sports team or
league) .

Finally, while HBO and TVKO are clearly major players in the
world of televised boxing, we are somewhat perplexed by the
statement that "Time Warner Sports, however, arguably comes closer
than any other network to acting as a promoter." We do not perform
traditional promoter functions, do not contract directly with
sites, do not enter into bout agreements with fighters, do not do
business with ratings organizations; we are simply programmers.
Prior to the establishment of TVKO, we had Nevada and New Jersey
counsel investigate this issue since we had not previously been
involved in pay-per-view boxing; we received opinions that TVKO
would not be functioning as a promoter under Nevada or New Jersey
law.

Thank you for your work and the work of the Subcommittee in
attempting to improve the sport of boxing. We are glad that we
have been able to offer our assistance and pledge our continuing
cooperation.

Best wishes.

Very truly yours,

Louis J. DiBella

LDB/bc

252

Senate Permaner' c ' Vgmmittee

on Investigates

OFFICIAL BOXING CONTRACT

***WBC Welterweight Championship*** EXHIBIT # *• \ A

NEVADA ATHLETIC COMMISSION

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT

22 November 91
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into in triplicate this day of. , 19 ,

^n Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc. __ ofthe

City of. New York _ , State of. NY

a boxing promoter duly licensed under the laws of the State of Nevada, hereinafter called the Promoter, and _

James "Buddy" McGirt ofthe

City of .?.?.?.ntL w - _9 d _ , State of. NY. , a duly licensed boxer

under the laws of the State of Nevada, License number... , hereinafter called the Boxer, and

_ _..of the City of . ,

State of. , a duly licensed manager, under the laws of the State of Nevada,

License number , hereinafter called the Manager.

WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto
hereby agree to and with each other as follows:

, ^, t „ ■., L ■ • , c Mirage Hotel

1 . That the Boxer will appear and enter into a boxing contest at the site location of.

Las Vegas ., . .. 29 A
_ _ „. , Nevada, on the day

of. , 19......... or on a date to be hereafter agreed upon, for i.? —rounds to a decision with

Simon Brown of the City of. Washington D.C. ,

State of. __ _ , as his opponent, at a weight of not over......... pounds,

said weight to be taken on the certified scales of the Promoter.

2. That the Promoter will pay the Boxer for such contest, and the Boxer 'agrees to accept in full of all claims and

demands for his services and the performance by him of this contract, the sum of. iiix..h.unrir.£d... twenty.-...

five thousand nn||arc ^625, 000. 00 ,

3 That ihe conicsi shall be with gloves to be furnished by the Promoter at its own expense, as provided by chapter 467 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, authorizing
boxing contests, and shall be conducted in all respects in conformity with the laws of the State of Nevada, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Nevada Athletic
Commission, which are hereby made a pan of this agreement; that the referee of said contest shall be duly licensed to act as such by the State of Nevada, and assigned to act
as referee by the Nevada Athletic Commission. If the referee or the Nevada Athletic Commission shall decide that the Boxer and Manager, or either of them, did not enter
n good faith, or the Boxer and Manager, or either of them, had any collusive understanding or agreement regarding the i<

that the same should be on an honest exhibition of skill on the part of the contestants, or that the Boxer is not honestly competing or did not give an honest exhibition
skill, or is guilty of an act detrimental to the interest of boxing, it is agreed in any of such events that the Boxer shall not be entitled to the compensation above named,
pan thereof, unless so ordered by Ihe Nevada Athletic Commission

It is further agreed that ihe Promoter shall pay said compensation to the said Commission in the event the Commission shall so order upon any of the above-men
grounds The Commission shall thereupon, in its discretion, make such disposition of said purse as it deems to the best interest of legitimate soon and may forfeit
Nevada Athletic Commission all or any part of compensation or order the same or any portion thereof paid 10 the Boxer All parties hereto agree to accept and be bound
decision of the said Commission and such decision shall be final and conclusive of the rights of the parties thereto.

4 That the Boxer shall personally report at the above-named fight location for weighing and medical examination, in accordance with the rules and regulations
Nevada Athletic Commission, and shall report at the site to the director of bouts two hours before the time set for the contest

5. The Boxer agrees to appear when and as directed by the Promoter at all reasonable times for publicity purposes.

6 Should (he Boxer desire the Manager be paid directly by the Promoter, deducting such amount from the Boxer's share of the purse:

(a) The Manager must be licensed by the Nevada State Athletic Commission.

:en the Boxer and Manager must be on hie with the Commission:

(d) The Boxed must specify and initial any such »

Manager's Share Boxer's Initials

t included in the above should be written hereat;

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties hereto have hereunto affixed their hands and seals, in triplicate, ai
_ _ , Nevada.

PROMOTER ^. a . d . i ..^.-..?5..V..9^f^.°. >C . i . n .?.'_... I .. rl £- Date H/22 / 91

By (Signature) /^^L^^/ ^ /t /*>\fo J

BOXER (Signaturelf^Ll^..../^

MANAGER (S\Mme)^./^A^..^S^ir^rrr^ZZ.. Vzte..//./.?~?^$J...^

NOTICE TO MATCHMAKERi/Every boxer MUST BE SIGNED on one of these Official Boxing Contracts. White copy or this
contract MUST be submitted by weigh in time to the Commission.

Managers handling boxers under so-called "verbal agreements" cannot sign contracts for boxers' appearance as "verbal
agreements" are not recognized by the Commission. If a boxer has no written contract with a licensed manager then such boxer must
sign his own boxing contracts.

WHITE COPY-Nevada Athletic Commission; YELLOW COPY-Promoter's File; BLUE COPY-Boxer.

253

— HJ*

-2.

1- J

i » =
"sSZ
i M
1^1

C - -

254

JVisciscn Squars Garriei.
Bcxina

MSC Communications Group
T ;o Pennsylvania Plaza
New York. NY 10121-0091
212^65-6000
Fax. 212^65-6010

November 26, 1991

Mr. Chuck Minker

Executive Director

Nevada State Athletic Commission

Las Vegas, Nevada

Dear Mr. Minker:

I respectfully request that checks to cover my purse
for my bout against Simon Brown on November 29th be
made payable to Alfred Certissimo Inc.

Thank you.

James "Buddy" McGirt

Approved:

Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on investigations

EXHIBIT # 21 <fc)

/\ ('PoramotinJ (^ammiwualinrui (^imipastu

255

Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations

EXHIBIT #^i

UNITED STATES SENATE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

IN RE THE MATTERS OF:

CORRUPTION IN PROFESSIONAL
BOXING

AFFIRMATION OF
ALFONSE D'ARCO

I, Alfonse D'Arco, under penalties of perjury, declare:

On August 23, 1982, I was inducted into the Luchese
organized crime family. In May of 1990 I was appointed acting
boss of the Luchese family by then boss, Vittoria Amuso, who had
fled a federal indictment.

In September of 1991 I attended a meeting of Luchese members
in the Hotel Kimberly in Manhattan. At the meeting I was under
the strong impression that members or associates of the Luchese
family were planning to kill me. I fled the September meeting
and, soon after, decided to cooperate with Federal authorities to
protect my family and myself. I am currently in protected
Federal custody.

As a high ranking member of the Luchese crime family I have
knowledge of the identity and activities of other members and
associates of the Luchese family.

I am familiar with Andrew Licari of Northern New Jersey.
Licari is a member of the Luchese family. Licari was brought in
by a relative of Licari' s and Luchese member Leonard Pizzolatto.
Licari is involved in loan sharking and several other businesses.

I am also familiar with Marco Minuto and his brother Lenny
Minuto of Dobbs Ferry, New York. Marco Minuto has associations
with several organized crime families. Marco Minuto and Lenny
Minuto are also part of the Luchese crew run by Luchese
caporegime Joey Giampa. Marco Minuto is involved with an ice
company located in Hunts Points Market, New York.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct
except as to those matters alleged on information and belief and,
as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

Executed this / £. day of March, 1993

Alfonpe D'Arco

256

CO
LD
O

257

MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CORPORATION

TWO PENHBTLVANIA PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEWYOtK 1 01 21-0091

e XA^403P

J£J£| AL7RZD CERTI85IMO IN
OF

505394

NET AMOUNT

$40,000.00

< WSONBOUAflE JAHDE^ COflPORATlOfc

"•OOSOSaSU"' i:D ElqOfiJflfl": SB-" i iiq&l?"'

'&fyM &fe» 4

Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigation

EXHIBIT * 3 ^ Ch >

258

Madison Square Garden
Boxing

MSG Communications Group

Ne* Vyc NY 10121-0091

212-^5-5995

rax ?:Z-t65-50W

Senate Permanent Sot w«WBti«

or Jiwes&gatooifc

Bob Goooman

Vice Preswv 4 MaKimax?

Al -

I ga

ve Stu the whole breakdown on the fight and Buddy's money,
total of $750,000.00 for the fight.

He will actually receive

We still owe him $50,000.00.

His sanction fee to the WBC was $18,750.00.

.£iu training expenses that he received were $75,000.00.

t oaid Stu the balance. $40,000.00 was in cash and the remainder
In a check to Alfred Certissimo Inc. We had Stu Sign a receipt
for the cash.

Any

further Questions, just call.

Bob

t ,~( ypa/n/nounl f^pfn/ruinicalior-* ( nmnarw

259

Senate Petmanent Subcommittee
wbc welterweight championship on Imestigationi

EXHIBIT # 52

BOOT AGREEMENT WITH OPTIONS

1991 AGREEMENT dated this 26 day of November ,

t9*_ by and between MADISON SQUARE GARDEN BOXING, INC., a New
York corporation, with offices at Four Pennsylvania Plaza, New

York, NY 10001 ("Promoter"), James McGirt , having an

address at 195 Suffolk Avenu e . Brentwood. NY 11717 __

("Boxer") and AT Cer-t-o _t the manager of Boxer, having

an address at 1?sq P^j-tpr^nn PT^nk Roari. Saraurus, NJ

( "Manager") .

WITNESSETH

In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein contained the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Boxer will engage in, and Promoter will promote or
co-promote, a boxing contest with Simon Brown , or another
opponent designated by Promoter after consultation with Boxer
("Opponent"), scheduled for twelve ( 13 rounds to a
decision (the "Bout"). Boxer will weigh-in for the Bout at no
more than 147 lbs. The Bout will be held at

the Mirage Hotel, Las Vegas on November 29 , 19691 or at

such other place or on such other date as Promoter may "designate
after consultation with Boxer. The Bout will be conducted in
conformity with the rules and regulations of the Athletic
Commission having jurisdiction at the location for the Bout, or
if there is no such commission, the New York State Athletic
Commission and in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the world governing body, if any, having jurisdiction over the
Bout, world Boxing Council Champsionship Rules.

2. Boxer and Manager grant to Promoter (i) all rights
required to stage the Bout and to sell tickets of admission to
the Bout to the public; (ii) the exclusive and unrestricted right
to exploit the Bout worldwide, in perpetuity, through all forms
of electronic media exploitation now known or hereafter created,
including without limitation standard commercial or noncommercial
over-the-air television, basic or pay cable, pay-per-view, closed
circuit and other forms of non-standard television and cassette,
disc and other forms of home exhibition; and (iii) all other
rights, privileges and benefits incident to or arising out of the
foregoing and the promotion and exploitatiion of the Bout,
including without limitation the right to retain all revenues
therefrom and to obtain copyrights or other protections
throughout the world with respect thereto.

3. Boxer and Manager grant to Promoter the exclusive
right to use in any and all media the name, likeness and
biographical material of Boxer, Manager and Boxer's trainers,

-1-

260

handlers and seconds, for the purpose of advertising, promoting
and merchandising the Bout, including without limitation the
distribution or sale of souvenir programs in connection with the
Bout. The Promoter shall further have the right to use the name
of Boxer, his photograph and other likeness on commercial and
merchandising tie-ups and advertisements, banners, buttons,
posters, souvenir items and all similar products in connection
with the Bout. In no event shall any such name, likeness or
biographical material be used as a direct endorsement of any
commercial product or service.

4. As full consideration for all of the rights herein
granted to Promoter and for the complete performance by Boxer
and Manager of their obligations provided for herein. Promoter

agrees to pay Boxer the sum of Seven hundred thousand*

($ 700, 000. 00 ) Dollars upon completion of the Bout. Promoter
shall also provide at no cost to Boxer, round trip transportation

from Boxer's home city to the site of the Bout for seven

( 7) persons (including Boxer) as well as seven 1 7 )

hotel rooms and a reasonable food allowance for such persons (and
training facilities, if appropriate) for the number of days
designated by Promoter. Promoter will further provide Boxer with

-_------------- I ) complimentary tickets to the Bout, which

tickets may not ~b"e sold, bartered or otherwise transfered by
Boxer for any consideration whatsoever.

5. Boxer will arrive at the site of the Bout at least
twenty-one ( 2]) days prior to the date of the Bout, if so

requested by Promoter.

6. Boxer and Manager agree that they will cooperate
and assist in the publicizing, advertising and promoting of the
Bout, and that they will appear at and participate in a
reasonable number of joint or separate press conferences,
interviews and other publicity or exploitation appearances and
activities (any and all of which may be telecast, broadcast,
cablecast or otherwise recorded), at times and places designated
by Promoter upon reasonable notice to Manager.

7. (a) Boxer and Manager represent, warrant and
agree that each is free to enter into this Agreement and that
neither one has entered or will enter into any contract or
agreement in conflict with the provisions hereof or which
purports to grant to another similar or conflicting rights or
which would or might interfere with the full and complete
performance by Boxer and Manager of their respective obligations
hereunder or the free and unimpaired exercise by Promoter of any
of the rights herein granted to it. Boxer and Manager also
represent that there are no pending claims or litigations
affecting Boxer or Manager which would or might interfere with
the full and complete exercise or enjoyment by Promoter of any
rights granted hereunder.

(b) Boxer and Manager further represent, warrant

*Six hundred twenty five thousand dollars plus seventy five thousand
for training expenses. -2-

261

and agree that Boxer shall not perform in a boxing contest or
other athletic contest between the date hereof and the date of
the Bout.

(c) Boxer and Manager further represent, warrant
and agree that no advertising or promotional material will appear
on their clothing or the clothing of any member of their
entourage worn in connection with the Bout, other than the name
of the manufacturer thereof as may normally appear on such
clothing, without the prior written approval of Promoter.

B. Boxer and Manager hereby acknowledge and agree that
the services to be rendered or furnished by Boxer and the rights
granted to Promoter hereunder are of a special, unique, unusual
and extraordinary character, giving them peculiar value, the loss
of which cannot be reasonably or adequately compensated in
damages in an action at law and would cause Promoter
irreparabledamage and injury. Boxer and Manager, therefore,
agree that Promoter shall be entitled to injunctive or other
equitable relief to prevent any breach or default hereunder,
which shall be in addition to and without prejudice to any other
fights or remedies Promoter may have in such event.

9. Promoter shall have the right at its election to
obtain life or other insurance upon Boxer in such amounts as it
may determine at its cost and expense, including, but not limited
to, insurance against the failure of Boxer to appear and to
participate in the Bout; and neither Boxer nor Manager shall have
any right, title or interest in such insurance. Boxer and
Manager agree to cooperate and assist in Promoter's obtaining
such insurance, including submitting to such physical or other
examinations of Boxer as may be required to obtain such
insurance.

10. In the event the Bout is to be commercially
telecast or cablecast, Boxer and Manager agree that each will
comply (and that they will cause all members of Boxer's entourage
to comply) with all the terms and conditions for which compliance
is required by the network responsible for such telecast or
cablecast. Promoter agrees to provide Boxer and Manager with
all such terms and conditions of the applicable network as soon
as is reasonably practicable prior to the Bout.

11. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
contrary, if the Bout is delayed or prevented by reason of any
act of God, fire, flood, public disaster, strike or other labor
difficulties, refusal or inability of any fighter (including, but
not limited to, Boxer and/or his opponent) for any reason
whatsoever (including, but not limited to, a defeat or other
value-lessening event causing Promoter to terminate such
fighter's contract) to participate in a boxing contest included
on the fight card of which the Bout is a part, which results in
the cancellation of the card or otherwise prevents the Bout, or
any other cause, whether of a similar or different nature, beyond

-3-

262

the reasonable control of Promoter, including without limitation
termination or cancellation of the site agreement or the
agreement for the broadcast or cablecast of the Bout, as the case
may be, for reasons out of the reasonable control of Promoter,
then Promoter shall not be liable to Boxer therefor, and Promoter
may, but shall not be obligated to, (i) postpone or reschedule
the Bout so delayed to a date within six (6) weeks of the date on
which the Bout was originally scheduled or such longer period as
Boxer and Promoter may agree upon, (ii) in the event the Opponent
in the Bout refuses or is unable to participate in same, to
substitute another opponent, or (iii) cancel the Bout and
terminate this Agreement in which event Promoter shall have no
further liability or obligation to Boxer with respect to the
Bout. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be deemed to limit the
liability of Boxer in the event of his refusal to fight other
than for reasons of injury or illness which prevents him from
fighting, as certified by a licensed physician authorized to so
certify by the athletic commission having jurisdiction over the
Bout.

12. (a) Boxer irrevocably grants to Promoter the
right (the "Option") to secure, arrange and promote Boxer's next

five ^__ (_£) professional boxing contests following

the Bout (hereinafter referred to individually as the "Additional
Bout", and collectively as the "Additional Bouts") each such

Option to be exercisable at any time within two [2 )

months from the date of Boxer's last Bout or Additional Bout, as
the case may be (the "Option Period"), by written notice to
Boxer. Each of the Additional Bouts, if any, with respect to
which Promoter has exercised its Option shall be conducted
pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement
and each of the parties hereto shall have all of the rights and
obligations with respect to the Additional Bouts as they have
with respect to the Bout. As soon as reasonably practicable
following notice of exercise of an Option, Promoter shall notify
Boxer of the location and date of such Additional Bout (which

date shall not be more than four (J ) months from the

date of the prior Bout) and the opposing fighter and, will consult
with Boxer with respect thereto. Boxer represents, warrants and
agrees that he shall not perform in a boxing contest or other
athletic contest during any Option Period or prior to the
occurrence of an Additional Bout if Promoter has exercised its
Option with respect to such Additional Bout.

(b) In consideration for the grant of such
Options, Promoter will use its reasonable efforts to arrange each
Additional Bout during the applicable Option Period.

(c) In the event that Promoter exercises one or
more of the Options, Promoter shall pay Boxer, on condition that
Boxer fully and completely performs all of the services required
to be performed by Boxer hereunder and as full consideration for
such services and the rights granted hereunder, as follows:

-4-

263

(i) for the first Additional Bout, if any, a
sum determined by Promoter but in no event less than

two hundred fifty «-hniisanti ($?sn.nnn ) Dollars, plus

such other remuneration and expense allowances as may be provided
for in Schedule A;

(ii) for the second Additional Bout, if any,
a sum determined by Promoter but in no event less than

tw o hundred fifty thousand — ($ 250,000 ) Dollars, plus

such other remuneration and expense allowances as may be provided
for in Schedule A; and

(iii) for the third Additional Bout, if any,
a sum determined by Promoter but in no event less than

two hundred fifty thousand ($ 250,000 ) Dollars, plus

such other remuneration and expense allowances as may be provided
for in Schedule A.

(i&) & (v) as in i, ii, and iii above for fourth and fifth additional bout

(d) In the event that Promoter does not exercise
the next available Option for an Additional Bout during the
applicable Option Period pursuant hereto. Boxer shall be free to
accept a third party offer and engage in a boxing contest
following such Option Period and neither Promoter, on the one
hand, nor Boxer and Manager, on the other, shall have any further
rights or obligations to the other with respect to such
Additional Bout.

(e) Notwithstanding Promoter's election not to
exercise one of its Options within the applicable Option Period,
this Agreement and any additional Options held by Promoter for
subsequent Additional Bouts shall continue in full force and
effect during subsequent Option Periods.

13. In the event that Boxer, or the Opponent, asserts
that he is disabled, due to an injury or sickness, from appearing
in any of the Additional Bouts, Promoter may extend the Option
Period for a period of time equal to the period of such
disability. Any dispute between the parties relating to the term
of such disability shall be decided by and subject to the rules
of the applicable state athletic commission or, in the absence of
such commission, by the New York State Athletic Commission.

14. Each of the parties hereto agrees to execute and
deliver any and all further documents necessary to carry out the
purposes hereof, including without limitation any standard form
contracts required by the applicable athletic commission.

15 All notices, requests, demands and other
communications which are required or may be given pursuant hereto
shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given
on the date received if delivered personally or sent by
registered or certified mail, telex or cable, postage prepaid, to
the parties at the addresses and set forth in this Agreement (or
at such other address as a party may designate by notice pursuant

-5-

264

to this Paragraph) and, if to HSG, with a copy to: Madison Square
Garden Corporation, Two Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York
10121-0091, Attention: General Counsel. Any notices requests,
demands or other communications which are required or may be
given to Boxer hereunder may instead be given to Manager unless
Boxer specifically requests otherwise in writing to MSG.

16. This Agreement shall be construed under the
internal law of the State of New York, applicable to agreements
fully executed and to be performed therein.

17. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
deemed to constitute a partnership or joint venture between us or
constitute Promoter as your agent or you as Promoter's agent nor
shall anything in this Agreement be construed to constitute you
as an employee of Promoter, and you hereby represent and warrant
to Promoter that you are and will remain an independent
contractor.

18. Neither Boxer nor Manager shall have the right to
assign or otherwise transfer their rights or obligations under
this Agreement. Promoter shall have the absolute right to
assign, license, sublicense or otherwise transfer any of its
rights or obligations hereunder to any person or entity
whatsoever.

19. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement
between the parties with respect to the subject mater hereof and
supersedes and replaces all prior and contemporaneous warranties,
representations and agreements, whether written or oral, with
respect thereto and may not be amended or modified except in a
writing executed by the party to be charged therewith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Agreement on the date and year first above written.

MADISON SQUARE GARDEN BOXING, INC.

Nam*/ of B'ox^r

-6-

ame of Manager

265

Senate J*«rmaiwot Subcommittee
on

EXHIBIT # W

266

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05706 1846

Oregon

Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations

EXHIBIT #__HH_

BOXING AMD
WRESTLING

COMMISSION

May 4, 1993

Mr. Stephen H. Levin

Staff Counsel - U.S. Senate

Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations

Rm 193 - Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

RE:

Correction on S. HRG 102-1013. Aug 11,12 1992
Corruption In Professional Boxing

Dear Steve,

On page 190, 2nd paragraph of above referenced publication there appears
incorrect information regarding the regulation of Boxing in the State of Oregon.

The Oregon State Boxing and Wrestling Commission was created by the
Legislature in 1987, and remains the sole regulator of those activities within the
State. Prior to 1987 there existed several municipal commissions (including
Portland).

We regulate Boxing, at least in our opinion, the way it should be regulated,
consequently we have little activity. It is said by some in the industry the "you
cannot work with us. I think that translates to, "you cannot work the Oregon
Commission."

Bruce Anderson
Executive Director

BA:jh

9450 SW Commerce Circle
Suite 31 1
PO Box 901
Wilsonvilie, OR 97070
(503) 682-0582
FAX (503) 682-275i

65-875 (276)

ISBN 0-16-041441-5

90000

780160"4

4411

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Corruption in professional boxing : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session"

See other formats